For almost 5000 years now, an anthropocentric world view has prevailed in large parts of the world. In general, this view claims that humanity is at the center of the world and enjoys a prominent position in nature. The common division of all living beings into humans and non-humans illustrates this fact. Also, the most religions (e.g. Christianity, Judaism, Islam) describes the human as the pride of creation. However, not only religions propagate this view. Humanism, too, attributes a unique position to mankind.
A consequence of the view that the human being is placed higher, is the disparagement of other living beings. Therefore, since the beginning of anthropocentrism, non-human animals are objectified, exploited as slaves and consumed as food. It is called speciesism, more specific, carnism. Both a "subcategory" of anthropocentrism. However, this approach to the environment is neither ecologically sustainable nor morally justifiable.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. Defining reasons
III. Disproving carnist arguments
1. Tradition (normal)
2. Hedonism
3. Health/Biological
4. Difference in the worth of living beings?
5. How do humans see themselves in the world, between other living beings? (natural)
IV. The Justification
V. A roll swapping thought experiment
VI. Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this paper is to examine whether a legal prohibition on the consumption of animals and animal products can be normatively justified. By analyzing common arguments used to support meat consumption—such as tradition, hedonism, health, intellectual superiority, and naturalness—the study aims to demonstrate their logical inconsistency and lack of normative force, thereby advocating for legally enforced veganism.
- Analysis of public reason and justification principles
- Critique of common "carnist" arguments
- Examination of the normative status of human-animal relations
- Implementation of a thought experiment to challenge anthropocentrism
Excerpt from the Book
3. Health/Biological
Although, this argumentation takes place on a normative level, a partly empirical digression is needed. Otherwise, the whole paper can be refuted very simple. If one should agree with previous and following arguments, many carnists refer to the biological or health dimension. They claim, that meat is an essential part of a healthy nutrition for human beings and that humans could not survive or live healthy without the ingredients of animal products.
It is true, that in the history of the homo sapiens it was an important part, it has led to larger brains and therefore to the success of the human species (Klurfeld 2015), but many studies showed that it is not needed anymore. In the meanwhile it is even the case that the abstention from meat leads to the reduction of diseases such as high blood pressure, diabetes and many others (McEvoy, Temple, and Woodside 2012).
Also, these empirical facts lead to normative conclusions. As already mentioned, many religions and humanism see the human as an outstanding creature in the world. This implies that it is a justified demand on human beings to listen to scientific facts, to reconsider their eating habits and thus to refrain from consuming meat for their own benefit and for the benefit of other living beings. Weitzenfeld and Joy call these one of two ironies of humanism and therefore of carnism. The irony is that "the dogmatism of human exceptionalism contradicts humanism’s commitment to truth based in human experience and empiricism" (2014, 6-7).
Summary of Chapters
I. Introduction: This chapter introduces the anthropocentric worldview and defines the paper's goal of using normative arguments to justify a legal ban on meat consumption.
II. Defining reasons: This section explains the Public Justification Principle and establishes the criteria for reasons to be considered public, accessible, and shareable within a democratic society.
III. Disproving carnist arguments: This chapter systematically deconstructs five major arguments for meat consumption, highlighting logical fallacies in tradition, hedonism, health claims, intelligence-based hierarchy, and naturalness.
IV. The Justification: This section concludes that since carnist arguments are internally inconsistent and logically indefensible, a legal state intervention in the form of enforced veganism is normatively justifiable.
V. A roll swapping thought experiment: This chapter presents a hypothetical scenario involving superior aliens to illustrate the instability of human superiority claims and to challenge current perceptions of non-human value.
VI. Conclusion: This final section summarizes the main findings and suggests that the first necessary step towards a more ethical society is to stop viewing meat consumption as a given.
Keywords
Veganism, Carnism, Public Justification, Anthropocentrism, Normative Philosophy, Animal Rights, Speciesism, Humanism, Ethics, Public Reason, Naturalistic Fallacy, Rationality, Moral Consistency.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines whether the consumption of animals and animal products can be prohibited by law through the application of normative ethical arguments and principles of public reason.
What are the central themes discussed in the work?
Key themes include the critique of anthropocentrism, the justification of state-enforced legal changes, the logical consistency of moral arguments, and the status of human-animal relationships.
What is the primary research goal?
The main objective is to provide a normative justification for legally enforced veganism by systematically refuting common arguments used to defend the exploitation of animals.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The author employs a philosophical analysis, focusing on normative argumentation, the principle of public justification, and the critique of logical fallacies, supplemented by relevant empirical findings.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body evaluates five specific arguments (tradition, hedonism, health, intelligence, and naturalness), applies the Public Justification Principle, and utilizes a thought experiment regarding social hierarchy.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The work is characterized by terms such as veganism, carnism, speciesism, public justification, and normative ethics.
How does the "roll swapping" thought experiment support the argument?
It illustrates the subjectivity of superiority by imagining a scenario where an intellectually superior species treats humans as humans currently treat animals, thereby highlighting the lack of an absolute moral justification for consumption.
Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" significant to the author's argument?
The author uses the naturalistic fallacy to disprove claims that meat consumption is justified simply because it is a "traditional" or "natural" behavior, arguing that an "is" does not automatically imply an "ought."
- Arbeit zitieren
- Severin Grüber (Autor:in), 2019, How to justify a legal enforced veganism. A case of the Homo Carnivorous, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/611405
