Today (1 November) is ‘world vegan day’. This is a good moment to reflect on a decision that the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics took almost exactly a year ago. In October 2021, we chose to firmly commit to a DefaultVeg approach to help reduce meat and dairy consumption. Such reduction will help transform… Read More »One year of DefaultVeg at the Uehiro Centre
By Katrien Devolder
“Britons have cut their meat consumption by 17% over the past decade but will need to double these efforts if they are to meet targets for healthy diets and sustainable food production set out in the national food strategy earlier this year”. So began an article in The Guardian last Friday.[1] The article was reporting the guidance of the National food strategy[2]—commissioned by the UK government, but developed by an independent team in 2021—which recommends that meat consumption is cut by 30% within a decade. Many scientific studies have concluded that we (i.e., richer countries) need to be even more ambitious than that, especially if we want to halt the climate crisis.[3]
In this new Thinking Out Loud interview, Katrien Devolder talks to philosopher Dr Josh Milburn (Sheffield) about whether we should (and can) feed our cat or dog a vegan diet. There are plenty of good reasons to avoid products from factory farms (e.g. to prevent future pandemics, to reduce animal suffering, to reduce antimicrobial resistance,… Read More »Video Series: Should We Feed Our Pets a Vegan Diet?
By Katrien Devolder
Why do we force animals into close contact with each other, and with humans, while encouraging or even requiring humans to keep apart? Dangerous viruses do not distinguish between human and non-human vectors, so why do we?
The vast majority of countries affected by the Covid-19 pandemic have adopted social distancing measures ranging from rules dictating how close we may be to each other, to bans on indoor gatherings, to closures of schools and workplaces, to travel bans. These measures have come at a significant cost—to the economy, to our mental health, and to our relationships. But they have saved, and are still saving, many lives. In many cases, these measures are therefore widely considered justified and indeed of the utmost importance.[1]
But if social distancing is crucial in confronting pandemics, why do we restrict it to humans? After all, many of the most dangerous infectious diseases (including SARS, MERS, HIV-AIDS, and very likely Covid-19) originated in animals and were then transmitted to humans. Each year, such ‘zoonotic’ diseases infect one billion people and cause millions of deaths.[2] If dangerous viruses do not distinguish between human and non-human vectors, why do we?Read More »Pandemic Ethics: Social Distancing for Animals
In this talk [AUDIO + SLIDES], Prof. Peter Sandøe (Philosophy, Copenhagen University), argues that, from an ethical viewpoint, gene editing is the best solution to produce hornless cattle. There are, however, regulatory hurdles. (Presented at the workshop ‘Gene Editing and Animal Welfare’, 19 Nov. 2019, Oxford – organised by Adam Shriver, Katrien Devolder, and The… Read More »Hornless Cattle – Is Gene Editing The Best Solution?
Should we pay people to quit smoking or lose weight? Would paying them amount to coercion? Is there a risk that if we start paying for healthy behaviour, its value will be corrupted? Is paying unhealthy people unfair to those who already lead healthy life styles? In this video interview (with Katrien Devolder), Dr Rebecca… Read More »Video Series: Should We Pay People to Quit Smoking or Lose Weight?
This is an unedited version of an article originally published by The Conversation.
Picture this: it’s 20 April 2021 and the charming Austrian village of Braunau am Inn – Hitler’s birth place – reveals a new statue of Adolf Hitler on the main square. In his inauguration speech, the mayor stresses that although Hitler obviously did many immoral deeds, he also achieved some good things, such as building motorways and railroads, and advancing rocket science. With the new statue, the village wishes to commemorate Hitler’s valuable contributions to Germany and Austria, contributions from which many still reap benefits.
If this scenario were to occur,[1] it would cause a public outcry. It would be considered offensive and disrespectful towards Hitler’s victims and their families. It would also be seen as conveying implicit approval or tolerance of the atrocities that were committed in his name, perhaps making the village authorities complicit in the continuing stigmatisation of those same groups targeted by Hitler. In no time, the village would succumb to the pressure to take it down.
If there are good reasons not to erect a statue of Hitler, are there also good reasons to remove existing statues that some find problematic, such as that of the controversial British imperialist Cecil Rhodes?
In January, after months of heated debate and Rhodes Must Fall activism, Oxford University’s Oriel College decided to leave a statue of Rhodes on his pedestal at the front of the college. But protests are continuing against Oriel’s decision – mixed in with calls to remove statues of other controversial imperialist figures.Read More »Should Rhodes stay or should he go? On the ethics of removing controversial statues
Dr Christopher Gyngell (Oxford) comments on the HFEA’s decision to give green light to UK researchers to genetically modify human embryos for research. A clear analysis of the most common concerns, and a suggestion for what direction the debate should take.
There is wide agreement that embryonic stem cell research holds unique promise for developing therapies for currently incurable diseases and conditions, and for important biomedical research. However, as it is currently done, the isolation of embryonic stem cells involves a process in which an early embryo is destroyed, which many find highly problematic.
This has resulted in what I refer to in my book as
The Problem. Either one supports embryonic stem cell research and accepts resulting embryo destruction, or one opposes embryonic stem cell research and accepts that the potential benefits of this research will be foregone.Read More »New Book: The Ethics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
“BDSM [Bondage, Discipline, Sadism, Masochism] might be mainstream now, but it has a new PR problem. I blame Christian Grey.” writes ‘sexual submissive’ Sophie Morgan in an article in the Guardian.
I started reading E.L. James’ Fifty Shades of Grey but didn’t get very far. It’s very badly written (guess that’s no longer a secret) and, well, I found it incredibly boring (Pride and Prejudice is more exciting, I think). In any case, the book is just a starting point for something I began thinking about after a recent conversation with a friend who is part of the ‘BDSM community’.
The legal status of BDSM varies from country to country. In the UK, it is illegal if it results in any injury which is more than “transient or trifling”. Possessing extreme pornography is a criminal offence, which, for obvious reasons, may be problematic for those who are into SM. Moreover, those who engage in any kind of BDSM are not legally protected against discrimination on the basis of their sexual preferences (for example, they can be, and have been, fired for that reason).
I haven’t studied the issue in depth, but it seems to me that BDSM should be legal, the main reason being that it concerns a consensual sexual act by adults that doesn’t cause harm to third parties. (There’s an interesting paper by Nafsika Athanassoulis arguing why SM can be considered a consensual sexual act). But I was thinking about a further question. Should we put more effort into breaking the BDSM taboo? For example, in countries where BDSM is legal, should it be part of general sexual education?
Read More »Fifty shades: should BDSM become part of general sexual education?
