The thesis is an evaluation of a utilitarian argument for the permissibility of purchasing meat. The argument, which I call the replaceability argument, rests on four premises: 1. Meat purchases cause animals to be brought into existence. 2. The animals brought into existence by meat purchases live lives of positive final value. 3. If the first two premises are true, then meat purchases cause at least as good consequences as any alternative act. 4. If meat purchases cause at least as good consequences as any alternative act, then meat purchases are permissible. The first three premises are examined while the fourth one, representing consequentialism, is assumed to be true. The evaluation results in the conclusion that the argument is unsound because all of the premises evaluated turn out to be either doubtful or false.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-369051 |
| Date | January 2018 |
| Creators | Gunnarsson, Hampus |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Avdelningen för praktisk filosofi |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0015 seconds