Scholarlink

<p>In this article, we present two independent arguments in favor of the view that parents have a <i>pro tanto</i> moral duty to feed their children a predominantly plant-based diet. The first is the ‘Animal Harm Argument’. The significant suffering caused to animals by harmful animal agriculture is morally wrong, and consequently there is a moral duty to avoid consuming products coming from such circumstances. In a family context, parents have a moral duty to teach their young children the best ‘rules-of-thumb’ to comply with morality’s demands. Therefore, parents should, as a rule, provide their children with a plant-based diet. The second is the ‘Environmental Harm Argument’. Consuming animal products is associated with a large ecological footprint. There is a moral duty to reduce one’s ecological footprint, and significant reductions are not feasible without substantially cutting down on animal products, so moving toward a more plant-based diet is morally required. In families, parents have a special responsibility to help reduce their children’s ecological footprint, and to prepare them to heed laws requiring such reductions in the future, and therefore should feed them a predominantly plant-based diet. Lastly, we address several objections to our arguments and show why they do not hold.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Let Them Eat Plants! Two Arguments for Raising Children on a (Predominantly) Plant-Based Diet

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年8月21日

查看全文
  • Sabine Hohl,
  • Angela K. Martin

摘要

In this article, we present two independent arguments in favor of the view that parents have a pro tanto moral duty to feed their children a predominantly plant-based diet. The first is the ‘Animal Harm Argument’. The significant suffering caused to animals by harmful animal agriculture is morally wrong, and consequently there is a moral duty to avoid consuming products coming from such circumstances. In a family context, parents have a moral duty to teach their young children the best ‘rules-of-thumb’ to comply with morality’s demands. Therefore, parents should, as a rule, provide their children with a plant-based diet. The second is the ‘Environmental Harm Argument’. Consuming animal products is associated with a large ecological footprint. There is a moral duty to reduce one’s ecological footprint, and significant reductions are not feasible without substantially cutting down on animal products, so moving toward a more plant-based diet is morally required. In families, parents have a special responsibility to help reduce their children’s ecological footprint, and to prepare them to heed laws requiring such reductions in the future, and therefore should feed them a predominantly plant-based diet. Lastly, we address several objections to our arguments and show why they do not hold.