Buf ... for days and did not write anything ... I plan to write about bullfighting in Catalonia debate, but you know which side I am, or abuses that come to Catholic Church under the skirts (Has been demonstrations for the rights of these children ?)..... But no. Today I return to philosophy.
Last summer, Dani and I read a book by Peter Singer entitled We are what we eat . Singer, who has many detractors, is an Australian utilitarian philosopher. Broadly speaking, utilitarianism is a theoretical framework for morality, based on quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. The morality of any act or law is defined by its utility to mankind. Utility is a word that means that the positive impact should be maximized. These consequences usually include happiness or preference satisfaction. Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "the greatest welfare for the maximum number of people." In short, utilitarianism recommended method to produce more happiness or increase the happiness in the world. There is much to be clarified at the time of debate between the pros and cons of this trend. And, the truth, I will find more pros ... so I can not discuss one.
Singer is controversial primarily for its conception of life and death and their attitude towards life that we are accustomed to calling animal. In 1975 he published Animal Liberation which proposes an ethic that is based upon man, he also directed towards other animals, attacking what he calls "speciesism," or belief in the superiority of one species (in this case man) on the rest. Singer practical ethics of such controversial topics ranging from how to advocate for ethical treatment of animals, abortion, euthanasia, poverty and income distribution, among others.
result, Singer is a vegan convinced. In are what you eat introduces us to three families who are three types of diet: almost exclusively carnivorous (the family lives in the U.S.), vegetarian and vegan. No non-vegan demonizes far. Singer is aware of all cultural and economic difficulties when taking the last option. But calls have a food ethics, ie those who eat meat or products animals we rebel against the conditions in which farmed the same: again, his vision is the U.S.. Fortunately, in Europe the issue is more regulated than there. But we still have, for example, the option to buy eggs labeled "cage-floor" rather than the slightly cheaper from hens kept in cages.
I'm omnivorous. Not that I eat much meat. But as eggs, milk, cheese ... When I read I feel terrible Singer, really. His theses are absolutely impeccable. Just know that would stop eating meat if I ever were to be self ..... never not be able to eat an animal bred at home. Call me gourmet. I have no excuse, I do not behave consistently when I eat meat "depersonalized "....
Another day I will tell you more topics of ethics Singer. Ah
and who do not like or do not have time to read, I leave this trailer for Food Inc., a documentary that travels through the network absolutely essential.
Last summer, Dani and I read a book by Peter Singer entitled We are what we eat . Singer, who has many detractors, is an Australian utilitarian philosopher. Broadly speaking, utilitarianism is a theoretical framework for morality, based on quantitative maximization of good consequences for a population. The morality of any act or law is defined by its utility to mankind. Utility is a word that means that the positive impact should be maximized. These consequences usually include happiness or preference satisfaction. Utilitarianism is sometimes summarized as "the greatest welfare for the maximum number of people." In short, utilitarianism recommended method to produce more happiness or increase the happiness in the world. There is much to be clarified at the time of debate between the pros and cons of this trend. And, the truth, I will find more pros ... so I can not discuss one.
Singer is controversial primarily for its conception of life and death and their attitude towards life that we are accustomed to calling animal. In 1975 he published Animal Liberation which proposes an ethic that is based upon man, he also directed towards other animals, attacking what he calls "speciesism," or belief in the superiority of one species (in this case man) on the rest. Singer practical ethics of such controversial topics ranging from how to advocate for ethical treatment of animals, abortion, euthanasia, poverty and income distribution, among others.
result, Singer is a vegan convinced. In are what you eat introduces us to three families who are three types of diet: almost exclusively carnivorous (the family lives in the U.S.), vegetarian and vegan. No non-vegan demonizes far. Singer is aware of all cultural and economic difficulties when taking the last option. But calls have a food ethics, ie those who eat meat or products animals we rebel against the conditions in which farmed the same: again, his vision is the U.S.. Fortunately, in Europe the issue is more regulated than there. But we still have, for example, the option to buy eggs labeled "cage-floor" rather than the slightly cheaper from hens kept in cages.
I'm omnivorous. Not that I eat much meat. But as eggs, milk, cheese ... When I read I feel terrible Singer, really. His theses are absolutely impeccable. Just know that would stop eating meat if I ever were to be self ..... never not be able to eat an animal bred at home. Call me gourmet. I have no excuse, I do not behave consistently when I eat meat "depersonalized "....
Another day I will tell you more topics of ethics Singer. Ah
and who do not like or do not have time to read, I leave this trailer for Food Inc., a documentary that travels through the network absolutely essential.
0 comments:
Post a Comment