Slaughter of the singing sentients: measuring the morality of eating red meat.

2011/01/01 by Michael Archer · 1 voice · 1 citation
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology · Neuroscience · Social Sciences · #Geographies of human-animal interactions #Human-Animal Interaction Studies #Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies

paper · doi:10.7882/az.2011.051

openalex publication_date 2011/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/22

Abstract

Princeton University professor and oft-cited spokesperson for the animal liberation movement, Peter Singer, has advocated the view that if there is a range of ways of feeding ourselves, we should choose the way that causes the least unnecessary harm to animals (Singer & Mason, 2006). In general, this is interpreted by most animal rights advocates to mean that we should, if possihie, eat plants rather than animals.

Cited by

• Eating Food Produced in Harmful Ways: Wrongful Complicity or Moral Tragedy?

Discussions

• [Paper] Slaughter of the singing sentients: measuring the morality of eating red meat. - 2011 [lemmy, 4 points, 10 comments]

Related

• A structured literature review of the meat paradox
• The Psychology of Eating Animals
• Animal rights and the language of human rights
• Longitudinal effects of human supremacy beliefs and vegetarianism threat on moral exclusion (vs. inclusion) of animals
• Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Ethical Veganism