Abstract
New omnivorism is a term coined by Andy Lamey to refer to arguments that – paradoxically – our duties towards animals require us to eat some animal products. Lamey’s claim to have identified a new, distinctive position in food ethics is problematic, however, for some of his interlocutors are not new (e.g., Leslie Stephen in the nineteenth century), not distinctive (e.g., animal welfarists), and not obviously concerned with eating animals (e.g., plant neurobiologists). It is the aim of this paper to bolster Lamey’s argument that he has identified a novel, unified, and intriguing position (or set of positions) in animal ethics and the philosophy of food. We distinguish new omnivorism from four other non-vegan positions and then differentiate three versions of new omnivorism based on the kinds of animal products they propose we consume. We conclude by exploring a range of argumentative strategies that could be deployed in response to the new omnivore.
Highlights
New omnivorism is a term coined by Andy Lamey (2019), but subsequently adopted by others (e.g., Bobier, 2021), to refer to arguments that – paradoxically – our duties towards animals require us to eat some animal products.1 These arguments reach this conclusion by observing that, as they involve physical harms to animals, some forms of arable agriculture
We propose the following definitions: 2 In particular, in animal ethics and food ethics in western philosophy
We interrogate new omnivorism by exploring argumentative strategies that could be deployed in response to the new omnivore
Summary
Food Ethics (2022) 7:5 are more harmful than some ways of sourcing animal protein. if reducing harm to animals is our goal, we should be eating some animal products, rather than relying upon (those forms of) arable agriculture. : New omnivore: An advocate of (one of the family of arguments making up) new omnivorism, including (but not limited to) someone who practices a non-vegan diet as endorsed by new omnivorism Understood in this way, we contend that new omnivorism is distinctive, warranting delimitation; novel, warranting the descriptor new; and interesting, warranting scholarly attention. Some of what Lamey engages with is not distinctive He responds to Temple Grandin’s arguments about killing animals for meat in ways that do not involve excessive suffering We distinguish new omnivorism from other non-vegan positions that have played substantial parts in analytic food and animal ethics.. We distinguish new omnivorism from other non-vegan positions that have played substantial parts in analytic food and animal ethics. Third, we interrogate new omnivorism by exploring argumentative strategies that could be deployed in response to the new omnivore
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
