Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little? by Nathan Nobis

[Spencer Lo]

Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?

Nathan Nobis

Abstract: Nobis argues that Singer's consequentialist approach is inadequate for defending the moral obligation to become a vegetarian or vegan. The consequentialist case rests on the idea that being a vegetarian or vegan maximizes utility -- the fewer animals that are raised and killed for food, the less suffering. Nobis argues that this argument does not work on an individual level -- my becoming a vegetarian makes no difference to the overall utility of reducing animal suffering in a context of a huge industry and market unaffected by my actions. Nobis merges the insights of virtue ethics with consequentialism to argue that individuals can bring about more goodness if they have the virtues of compassion, care, and sensitivity to unnecessary cruelty and suffering. If one ought to be compassionate, sensitive to cruelty, resist injustice, and be morally integrated, then, Nobis argues, one ought to be a vegetarian or vegan.

Please click this link to view the full paper: Vegetarianism and Virtue: Does Consequentialism Demand Too Little?

The index of ARZone's online library of academic papers is here