S&F_scienzaefilosofia.it (Jun 2024)
Le basi filosofiche della dieta veg(eteri)ana. La scelta alimentare come scelta etica
Abstract
The philosophical foundations of the veg(etari)an diet. Food choices as ethical choices Although recent decades have seen a substantial increase in talking about the moral value of nature, the discussion has not yet undermined the belief according to which we can use nature without restraint, as long as we respects other human beings. The food issue is a classic example: our very existence and survival within planet Earth implies a competition which implies our use and killing of other forms of life, not belonging to our moral community. However, is still really indisputable that only human beings, and no other non-human natural entities, are members of this community? The main aim of this paper is to explore the answers provided to this question by the best-known contemporary philosophers, who defend the need to adopt a vegetarian diet: Peter Singer and Tom Regan. The central assumption of both authors is that, even though there are undoubtedly differences between humans and other natural entities, the ethical principles that underlie relationships between human beings are based and justified on the possession of traits that are also possessed by a large part of the non-human animals. Thus, we do not have to overturn any of the assumptions of traditional ethic. In fact, we have to apply them correctly: if the ability to experience pleasure and pain and/or of being conscious have intrinsic value, as already widely supported by the Western moral tradition, then all the entities with sensitivity and/or cognition abilities have a moral status. Singer’s utilitarian ethics, however, focus on the sensitive analogies between humans and animals. Regan’s deontological ethics discuss cognitive analogies between all sentient beings. Both philosophers claim that the burden of ethically justify nutritional choices is not on veg(etari)ans, but on those whose eating habits produce the same quantity and quality of exploitation and death of non-human animals: habits that can no longer be defended by simply mentioning the pleasure (such as the good taste of meat) that some can derive from the slaughter of animals. The paper also explores critiques and alternative philosophical foundations for a less anthropomorphic, but still ethically bonding, veg(etari)anism. Contributions to debate offered by authors such as Midgley, Goopaster, Callicott, Taylor, Palmer, and Fox have indeed the merit to recognize the same moral value to different natural entities and still promote a more general veg(etarian) lifestyle which appears more aware of our being rooted in a nature made up of complex dynamic relationships whose energy flows are also food flows.
