Students Eat Less Meat After Studying Meat Ethics

In the first controlled, non-self-report studies to show an influence of university-level ethical instruction on everyday behavior, Schwitzgebel et al. (2020) and Jalil et al. (2020) found that students purchase less meat after exposure to material on the ethics of eating meat. We sought to extend and conceptually replicate this research. Seven hundred thirty students in three large philosophy classes read James Rachels’ (2004) “Basic Argument for Vegetarianism”, followed by 50-min small-group discussions. Half also viewed a vegetarianism advocacy video containing factory farm footage. A few days after instruction, 54% of students agreed that “eating the meat of factory farmed animals is unethical”, compared to 37% before instruction, with no difference between the film and non-film conditions. Also, 39% of students anonymously pledged to avoid eating factory farmed meat for 24 h, again with no statistically detectable difference between conditions. Finally, we obtained 2828 campus food purchase receipts for 113 of the enrolled students who used their Student ID cards for purchases on campus, which we compared with 5033 purchases from a group of 226 students who did not receive the instruction. Meat purchases remained constant in the comparison group and declined among the students exposed to the material, falling from 30% to 23% of purchases overall and from 51% to 42% of purchases of $4.99 or more, with the effect possibly larger in the film condition.

Persistent Anosmia

John Stuart Mill famously maintained that “animal pleasures” – like enjoying good smells and tastes – are lower quality than the pleasures tied to higher cognition, like the pleasure of enjoying an opera or understanding a mathematical proof. This downgrading is particularly common in the ethical literature about eating animals. Peter Singer, James Rachels, Gary Francione, Alastair Norcross and dozens of other ethicists make quick work of defending vegetarianism by presuming that “gustatory pleasure” is trivial. But is it?

RACHELS, James & RACHELS, Stuart. Os elementos da filosofia moral.

http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/1807-1384.2016v13n3p239RACHELS, James & RACHELS, Stuart. Os elementos da filosofia moral. Trad. portuguesa e revisão técnica: Delamar J. V. Dutra. 7.ed. Porto Alegre: AMGH, 2013.

EUTANÁSIA ATIVA VOLUNTÁRIA: UMA DEFESA UTILITARISTA

Este trabalho tem como objetivo defender a permissibilidade moral da eutanásia ativa voluntária desde a perspectiva utilitarista de John Stuart Mill. A discussão sobre este tema tem levado muitos filósofos a pensarem se é correto ou não matar indivíduos que solicitam morrer em decorrência de doença incurável. Considerando apenas aqueles que defendem a sua permissibilidade, podem-se destacar filósofos contemporâneos como Peter Singer e James Rachels, ambos utilitaristas. No entanto, neste trabalho, é a obra de Mill que norteará a defesa, tendo em vista que dos autores clássicos do utilitarismo, considera-se que o dele possui melhores ferramentas conceituais que ajudam a analisar o problema da eutanásia e a propor uma defesa plausível. Sendo assim, primeiro serão apresentados os conceitos-chave da obra de Mill; em seguida, explicar-se-á o que é eutanásia e o que se entende neste trabalho por “doença incurável”. No terceiro momento serão discutidos os aspectos relevantes que envolvem a competência do indivíduo e se eutanasiar deve ser considerado moralmente errado. Por último será feita a defesa a partir dos princípios millianos.

Using and Refusing

James Rachels has argued on Utilitarian grounds that since removing life-sustaining treatment and physician-assisted suicide both aim at the very same end,hastening death to limit suffering, there are no morally significant moral distinctions between them. Others have argued for maintaining this distinction based on various forms of deontological and rights-based ethical theories that maintain that all acts of killing are inherently wrong. I argue that the enduring controversy over physician-assisted suicide might not be caused by such fundamental differences of opinion about moral theory, such as that which exists between Utilitarianism and Deontology, so much as by a commonly held misunderstanding of technology. In particular, the conclusion that there are no relevant ethical distinctions between killing and letting die can only be drawn by a Utilitarian, such as Rachels, by ignoring the recent work of philosophers of technology on the non-neutrality thesis.

Euthanasia and/or the End of Medical Care

The aim of this article is to develop a concept of euthanasia which is appropriate to the South African context. A brief survey of the Western debate is outlined, beginning with James Rachels' conceptual analysis of active and passive euthanasia. T. D. Sullivan's reaction to Rachels, as well as later contributions to the debate, are examined. The concept of euthanasia presupposed by this tradition is regarded as conceptually and morally restrictive, and an African worldview is then explored in the interest of an alternative conception. The latter view effects a conceptual shift, from a focus on explanation (versus justification) of the event of death, towards an approach of caring acceptance of responsibility during the process of dying in its entirety. The development of a revised and broader concept of euthanasia is facilitated in terms of a concurrence between the African perspective and the Christian approach to death and dying.

Ethics and the Bible

Many try to justify their moral positions — whether on murder, infanticide, homosexuality or abortion — by appealing to the Bible. But to what extent can we rely on what the Bible has to say about morality? In this paper, James Rachels, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, raises questions about the legitimacy of such Biblical justifications.