..... However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

Luckily there has been an explosion of animal ethics/rights books in the past decade, before this there were only a few noteworthy mentions. However, I still recommend reading about animal ethics in the larger context of environmental ethics, as many animal ethics books are still quite narrow and don't do a good job of conveying the relationship between the two.

But when you say "convey the relationship" that implies that there is a relationship to be conveyed. While it is true that sometimes "animal ethics" folks and "environmental" folks will find themselves of the same side in some particular battle they just as often (or even more often) find themselves on opposite sides of another. That's because their basis is close to entirely different.

The "animal ethics" folks begin with considering the issues from the point of view of individual actually living organisms. Collective entities such as species or even entire ecosystems are not actual living beings and so not of concern except to the extent that an individual animal "gotta have a habitat to carry on" << from a children's environmental song >>

The "environmental" folks begin with consideration of the entire ecosystem and from that point of view the life of any individual organism in it isn't important. They are concerned with the health, integrity, well being, etc. of the community of life but that is not the same things as being concerned about the particular fate of any living being in it.

It is a problem for these communities to devise means out how they might be able to work together on some issues while recognizing that they will be opposed on others. The demand (usually coming from the animal ethics side) that "you have to join our religion" isn't going to work.

Who is doing more for animal welfare: the vegan that drives a big car, keeps the heating on high and doesn't bother to recycle, or the guy who lives in the woods, foraging and hunting for food but nether touching anything that has any relation to a fossil fuel?

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico.

Thanks for the replies everyone. Sorry for making a thread and basically just abandoning it; I do have things to say but I'm really busy at the moment so it will have to wait.



Could you recommend some things worth reading? I've never really read much that isn't simply propaganda and would really like to get a better handle on these issues.

What would happen, if no animals would eat other animals?

Simple. All animals would be herbivores.

I'm not an expert, but that is one thing that really bothers me about Vegans, the whole embracing of petroleum fossil fuels, I mean don't they know there used to be cute little dolphins swimming in the Gulf of Mexico. Furthermore they create a divide between meat eaters and people who like just a little bit of meat wherever they go, so much so that you can't order a slice of pizza with both meat and vegetables, it has to be one or the other.

You can start with Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1962) for environmental ethics and Peter Singer's Animal Liberation (1975) for animal ethics. They form the foundation of modern discourse in their respective fields, so they're important to at least have an awareness of. To this extent you'll be fine reading each of them in an afternoon.

For secondary source introductions you can look into:
Animals & Ethics, 3E (2009) by Taylor
Ethics & Animals: An Introduction (2011) by Gruen
Environmental Ethics, 5E (2012) by Des Jardins

If you have someone to work with you, then you can look into some of these primary source anthologies:
Animal Rights: Current Debates & New Directions (2005) by Nussbaum & Sunstein
The Animal Ethics Reader, 2E (2008) by Armstrong & Botzler
Environmental Ethics, 6E (2011) by Pojman
Environmental Ethics: The Big Questions (2010) by Keller

And have huge population crashes when they overeat their food source. Predators play a vital role in maintaining the health of herbivores as species, and sometimes as individuals by culling the sick.

You may need to change where you buy your pizza but you raise some good points. Speaking as a vegan I agree that the separation that exists between those that eat meat and those that don't is not completely helpful. It does serve the purpose of raising awareness of animal friendly lifestyles, but it definitely alienates a lot of people as well. I wish people would understand that if they want to make a difference then eating almost no meat is almost as good as eating no meat and that many veggies/vegans will happily support anyone who wants to reduce the amount of animal products they consume, even if they aren't willing to go cold turkey.

As for the issue of vegans who embrace fossil fuels, I think that has to be viewed in the same way. Someone who calls themselves a vegan should probably be making an effort to reduce their carbon footprint, but the fact that we still do some things that are harmful shouldn't be viewed as a sign of hypocrisy that invalidates our cause. It is hypocritical, but the point is that we're making an effort to reduce the negative impact our lives have on others. It's a step in the right direction and if our standards are a bit lax that just makes it all the easier to join us.

Only along the current evolutionary path. Had evolution taken a different course which resulted in the absence of carnivores then almost cetainly it would have taken care of the problem along the way.

Only along the current evolutionary path. Had evolution taken a different course which resulted in the absence of carnivores then almost cetainly it would have taken care of the problem along the way.

I'll note that I'm not saying this to try and prove a point: I doubt the fact that non-human animals eat each other has any bearing on whether humans ought to eat meat. It's probably entirely irrelevant.