On Abstinence From Killing Animals

Porphyry's On Abstinence from Killing Animals is one of the most interesting books from Greek antiquity for both philosophers and historians. In it, Porphyry relates the arguments for eating or sacrificing animals and then goes on to argue that an understanding of humans and gods shows such sacrifice to be inappropriate, that an understanding of animals shows it to be unjust, and that a knowledge of non-Greeks shows it to be unnecessary. There are no Neoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle's Ethics from the period AD 250-600. Thus, although this work is not a commentary on Aristotle, it fills a gap in this series by going to the heart of ethical debates among Neoplatonists around AD 300, and revealing one ascetic Neoplatonist's view of the ideal way of life. It also records rival positions taken on the treatment of animals by Greek philosophers over the previous six hundred years.

Porphyry's "On Abstinence from Killing Animals "is one of the most interesting books from Greek antiquity for both philosophers and historians. In it, Porphyry relates the arguments for eating or sacrificing animals and then goes on to argue that an understanding of humans and gods shows such sacrifice to be inappropriate, that an understanding of animals shows it to be unjust, and that a knowledge of non-Greeks shows it to be unnecessary. There are no Neoplatonist commentaries on Aristotle's "Ethics "from the period AD 250-600. Thus, although this work is not a commentary on Aristotle, it fills a gap in this series by going to the heart of ethical debates among Neoplatonists around AD 300, and revealing one ascetic Neoplatonist's view of the ideal way of life. It also records rival positions taken on the treatment of animals by Greek philosophers over the previous six hundred years.

Should a philosopher be vegetarian? This question had been famously answered in the affirmative in a classic work on philosophical vegetarianism: On Abstinence from Eating Animals, written by the Neoplatonist Porphyry in the third century AD. This study traces the rekindling of interest in On Abstinence in the Renaissance. It shows that long before the term 'vegetarianism' emerged, philosophers, physicians and religious figures discussed the advantages and disadvantages of choosing a meat-free diet. As On Abstinence circulated, via editions and translations, the key questions posed by Porphyry stimulated new debates: is vegetarianism compatible with religious piety? Does a vegetable diet promote or endanger health and longevity? What can be learnt from observing the diets of other, geographically distant populations, such as the vegetarian Brahmans of India, or the cannibals in America? And finally, is it ethically justifiable to eat beings to which sentience and rationality may be attributed? Cecilia Muratori is Research Fellow at the Centre for Anglo-German Cultural Relations, Queen Mary University of London, and Tutor in Philosophy at the Institute of Continuing Education, University of Cambridge.

By exploring the ethical differences between humans and animals,Animalkind establishes a middle ground betweenegalitarianism and outright dismissal of animal rights. A thought-provoking foray into our complex and contradictoryrelationship with animals Advocates that we owe each animal due respect Offers readers a sensible alternative to extremism by speakingof respect and compassion for animals, not rights Balances philosophical analysis with intriguing facts andengaging tales

This innovative collection opens a door into the rich history of animals in China. This title is also available as Open Access.

The protest against meat eating may turn out to be one of the most significant movements of our age. In terms of our relations with animals, it is difficult to think of a more urgent moral problem than the fate of billions of animals killed every year for human consumption. This book argues that vegetarians and vegans are not only protestors, but also moral pioneers. It provides 25 chapters which stimulate further thought, exchange, and reflection on the morality of eating meat. A rich array of philosophical, religious, historical, cultural, and practical approaches challenge our assumptions about animals and how we should relate to them. This book provides global perspectives with insights from 11 countries: US, UK, Germany, France, Belgium, Israel, Austria, the Netherlands, Canada, South Africa, and Sweden. Focusing on food consumption practices, it critically foregrounds and unpacks key ethical rationales that underpin vegetarian and vegan lifestyles. It invites us to revisit our relations with animals as food, and as subjects of exploitation, suggesting that there are substantial moral, economic, and environmental reasons for changing our habits. This timely contribution, edited by two of the leading experts within the field, offers a rich array of interdisciplinary insights on what ethical vegetarianism and veganism means. It will be of great interest to those studying and researching in the fields of animal geography and animal-studies, sociology, food studies and consumption, environmental studies, and cultural studies. This book will be of great appeal to animal protectionists, environmentalists, and humanitarians.

This title examines the fields of value theory, normative and applied ethics on the issue of killing animals. It addresses a number of questions: Can painless killing harm or benefit an animal and, if so, why and under what conditions? Can coming into existence harm or benefit an animal? Is killing animals morally acceptable? Should animals have the legal right to life? In addressing these questions, animal rights and animal welfare positions are articulated and debated by some of the foremost thinkers on these issues, with a distinction made between rights-based and utilitarian approaches.