Why the naïve argument against moral vegetarianism really is naïve
Environmental values, vol. 10, no. 2001, 2001, pp. 103–112
Abstract
When presented with the claim of the moral vegetarian that it is wrong for us to eat meat, many people respond that because it is not wrong for lions, tigers and other carnivores to kill and eat animals, it cannot be wrong for humans to do so. This response is what Peter Alward has called the naïve argument. Peter Alward has defended the naïve argument against objections. I argue that his defence fails.
