Discussion of Josh Milburn’s Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals

Food Ethics 9 (1):1-9 (2024)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In Just Fodder: The Ethics of Feeding Animals, Josh Milburn thinks through the implications of feeding animals by focusing on the relationships between humans and three different groups of animals: (1) animal companions; (2) animal neighbours; and (3) wild animals. In my comments, I concentrate on how the actions and agency interests of these animals problematise some of Milburn’s assumptions and normative prescriptions. My overall aim is to show how giving animal agency more prominence in our thinking about what we owe to them has significant implications. It is my view that current theorising about other animals focuses too heavily on their experiential welfare and not enough on what animals do and the normative significance of what they do. Though I agree with Milburn that all animals have a right against being killed and made to suffer, a full ethical analysis of our relations with other animals must also consider their (equally weighty) interest in self-determination.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 101,337

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2024-01-17

Downloads
32 (#706,224)

6 months
6 (#858,075)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Angie Pepper
University of Roehampton

Citations of this work

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Case for Animal Rights.Tom Regan & Mary Midgley - 1986 - The Personalist Forum 2 (1):67-71.
Paternalism, Respect and the Will.Daniel Groll - 2012 - Ethics 122 (4):692-720.
Covid-19 and the future of zoos.Angie Pepper & Kristin Voigt - 2021 - Les Ateliers de l'Éthique / the Ethics Forum 16 (1):68-87.

Add more references