NIU Presidential Teaching Professor and Professor of Philosophy at Northern Illinois University. Areas of specialization: Epistemology, Philosophy of Religion, Animal Ethics, Environmental Ethics
Measuring human consumption of animals and animal products (HCAAP) is challenging but often impor... more Measuring human consumption of animals and animal products (HCAAP) is challenging but often important for researchers and animal rights advocates. We contribute to measuring HCAAP by conceptualizing that consumption as a trait. In 3 studies, we analyzed responses from traditional Food Frequency Questionnaires and created two measures of HCAAP traits based on 24-hour and 3-month self-reports. Studies 1 (N = 249) and 2 (N = 265) evaluated the item-level properties of 24-hour and 3-month self-reports, eliminating items that were not likely to provide much information about the underlying trait of HCAAP. Study 3 (N = 252) provided evidence that the two measures were predicted by knowledge of animals as food, meat-eating rationalizations, numeracy, sex, and political orientation. These results suggest that the two instruments could be used to measure HCAAP as a trait. We offer suggestions as to when using the two instruments may be beneficial.
Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism is morally required. The principal reasons offere... more Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism is morally required. The principal reasons offered in support of ethical vegetarianism are: (i) concern for the welfare and well-being of the animals being eaten, (ii) concern for the environment, (iii) concern over global food scarcity and the just distribution of resources, and (iv) concern for future generations. Each of these reasons is explored in turn, starting with a historical look at ethical vegetarianism and the moral status of animals
David Goldberg's beef isn't just about beef. His goal is to justify the raising, killing,... more David Goldberg's beef isn't just about beef. His goal is to justify the raising, killing, and eating of cows, steers (castrated bulls), and the myriad of other animals we routinely kill for food. While he promises to give us three arguments in defense of meat-eating, I detect five arguments: (i) the monk aping argument (If monks do it, so can I), (ii) the selfish gene argument, (iii) the animals can't suffer argument, (iv) the high elevation argument, and (v) the prey-liberation reductio. The arguments are independent of each other and will be treated as such. In what follows, I will address arguments (i) – (iv), starting with (ii). [I won't address argument (v) per se, because Singer has already addressed it in Chapter 6 of Animal Liberation.] Along the way, I will argue that Goldberg misinterprets Dawkins, Singer, and Norcross, and that for this reason, along with countless others, his defense of eating meat fails. Goldberg contends that Peter Singer's call for...
The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to... more The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to be the view that it is morally wrong to eat animals when equally nutritious plant-based foods are available. Several examples are introduced (i) to show that we all agree that animals deserve some direct moral consideration and (ii) to help identify and clarify several commonsense moral principles—principles we all accept. These principles are then used to argue that eating animals is morally wrong. Since you no doubt accept these principles, the argument demonstrates that consistency with your own beliefs and values commits you to the immorality of eating meat and requires you to alter your eating behavior accordingly. Mylan Engel Jr. Northern Illinois University
In this chapter, Mylan Engel Jr. argues that animal experimentation is neither epistemically nor ... more In this chapter, Mylan Engel Jr. argues that animal experimentation is neither epistemically nor morally justified and should be abolished. Engel argues that the only serious attempt at justifying animal experimentation is the benefits argument, according to which animal experiments are justified because the benefits that humans receive from the experiments outweigh the costs imposed on the animal subjects. According to Engel, the benefits we allegedly receive from animal-based biomedical research are primarily epistemic, in that experimenting on animal models is supposed to provide us with knowledge of the origin and proper treatment of human disease. However, Engel argues that animal models are extremely unreliable at predicting how drugs will behave in humans, whether candidate drugs will be safe in humans, and whether candidate drugs will be effective in humans. Engel concludes that animal-based research fails to provide the epistemic, and thereby moral, benefits needed to justi...
Measuring human consumption of animals and animal products (HCAAP) is challenging but often impor... more Measuring human consumption of animals and animal products (HCAAP) is challenging but often important for researchers and animal rights advocates. We contribute to measuring HCAAP by conceptualizing that consumption as a trait. In 3 studies, we analyzed responses from traditional Food Frequency Questionnaires and created two measures of HCAAP traits based on 24-hour and 3-month self-reports. Studies 1 (N = 249) and 2 (N = 265) evaluated the item-level properties of 24-hour and 3-month self-reports, eliminating items that were not likely to provide much information about the underlying trait of HCAAP. Study 3 (N = 252) provided evidence that the two measures were predicted by knowledge of animals as food, meat-eating rationalizations, numeracy, sex, and political orientation. These results suggest that the two instruments could be used to measure HCAAP as a trait. We offer suggestions as to when using the two instruments may be beneficial.
Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism is morally required. The principal reasons offere... more Ethical vegetarians maintain that vegetarianism is morally required. The principal reasons offered in support of ethical vegetarianism are: (i) concern for the welfare and well-being of the animals being eaten, (ii) concern for the environment, (iii) concern over global food scarcity and the just distribution of resources, and (iv) concern for future generations. Each of these reasons is explored in turn, starting with a historical look at ethical vegetarianism and the moral status of animals
David Goldberg's beef isn't just about beef. His goal is to justify the raising, killing,... more David Goldberg's beef isn't just about beef. His goal is to justify the raising, killing, and eating of cows, steers (castrated bulls), and the myriad of other animals we routinely kill for food. While he promises to give us three arguments in defense of meat-eating, I detect five arguments: (i) the monk aping argument (If monks do it, so can I), (ii) the selfish gene argument, (iii) the animals can't suffer argument, (iv) the high elevation argument, and (v) the prey-liberation reductio. The arguments are independent of each other and will be treated as such. In what follows, I will address arguments (i) – (iv), starting with (ii). [I won't address argument (v) per se, because Singer has already addressed it in Chapter 6 of Animal Liberation.] Along the way, I will argue that Goldberg misinterprets Dawkins, Singer, and Norcross, and that for this reason, along with countless others, his defense of eating meat fails. Goldberg contends that Peter Singer's call for...
The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to... more The article defends ethical vegetarianism, which, for present purposes, is stipulatively taken to be the view that it is morally wrong to eat animals when equally nutritious plant-based foods are available. Several examples are introduced (i) to show that we all agree that animals deserve some direct moral consideration and (ii) to help identify and clarify several commonsense moral principles—principles we all accept. These principles are then used to argue that eating animals is morally wrong. Since you no doubt accept these principles, the argument demonstrates that consistency with your own beliefs and values commits you to the immorality of eating meat and requires you to alter your eating behavior accordingly. Mylan Engel Jr. Northern Illinois University
In this chapter, Mylan Engel Jr. argues that animal experimentation is neither epistemically nor ... more In this chapter, Mylan Engel Jr. argues that animal experimentation is neither epistemically nor morally justified and should be abolished. Engel argues that the only serious attempt at justifying animal experimentation is the benefits argument, according to which animal experiments are justified because the benefits that humans receive from the experiments outweigh the costs imposed on the animal subjects. According to Engel, the benefits we allegedly receive from animal-based biomedical research are primarily epistemic, in that experimenting on animal models is supposed to provide us with knowledge of the origin and proper treatment of human disease. However, Engel argues that animal models are extremely unreliable at predicting how drugs will behave in humans, whether candidate drugs will be safe in humans, and whether candidate drugs will be effective in humans. Engel concludes that animal-based research fails to provide the epistemic, and thereby moral, benefits needed to justi...
Uploads
Papers