Is vegetarianism morally defensible?
Can one even be a vegetarian?
This book asserts that the answers to both these questions is a resounding 'no.' Drawing on the latest research in plant science, systems ecology, environmental philosophy, and cultural anthropology, Andrew F. Smith—himself a long-time vegetarian—shatters the distinction between vegetarianism and omnivorism.
He explains how the world would be better off if we could re-orient the way we think about plants, animals, and the moral reasoning that we use to bolster our belief in such a binary.
Smith illustrates how the divisions we have constructed between plants and animals, and between omnivorism and vegetarianism, is emblematic of a way of thinking about ourselves and our eating practices that perpetuates an ecocidal worldview.
A Critique of the Moral Defense of Vegetarianisminsists we must adopt new ways of looking at things if our species is to survive and thrive. Smith suggests we begin by re-envisioning our relationship with our food.
It turns out we are not what we eat, but who we eat. And this makes a world of difference.
What can motivate citizens in divided societies to engage in free, open, and reasoned dialogue?
Attempts by philosophers to answer this question focus largely on elucidating what citizens owe to one another as free and equal citizens, as members of a shared social context, or as agents who are mutually dependent on one another for our well-being. In The Deliberative Impulse: Motivating Discourse in Divided Societies, Andrew F. Smith suggests that that a better answer can be offered in terms of what we owe to our convictions. Given the defining role they play in how we live our lives and regard ourselves, among the highest-order interests that we maintain is being in a position to do right by our convictions to abide by conscience. By developing a clear understanding of how best to act on this interest, we see that we are well served by engaging in public deliberation.
Particularly for citizens in societies that are fragmented along ethnic, cultural, ideological, and religious lines, our interest in abiding by conscience should give us clear moral, epistemic, and religious incentives to deliberatively engage with allies and adversaries alike. Scholars who focus on issues in political philosophy, ethics, and political theory will value this book for how it suggests we can overcome the motivational roadblocks to active political participation and robust deliberation.
As a scholar, I specialize in environmental philosophy as well as social and political philosophy. I explore what it means to live sustainably, and I see no clear separation between ecological sustainability and social sustainability.
This comes out most clearly in my second book, a critique of the moral defense of vegetarianism (palgrave macmillan, 2016), in which I challenge an entrenched cultural fallacy — that human beings are at the top of or outside the food web. My book muddles the distinction between vegetarianism and omnivorism, and has consequently received considerable attention.
"Why it's impossible to actually be a vegetarian" was viewed over 1.7 million times at the conversation and was republished in salon, the washington post, the daily mail (uk), and macleans (canada), among others. My radio and podcast interviews include abc radio melbourne, sustainable dish podcast, and 1310 news in calgary, among others.
My current book project focuses on best-selling author daniel quinn (ishmael, the story of b, etc.). Quinn defends the “countercultural” proposition that ecological, social, and personal wellbeing go hand in hand. In challenging our society’s most entrenched myths about sustainable living, we can (and should) instead “enact a story” that works well for the planet and for people.
This project is supported by the drexel faculty scholarly and creative activity award, which provides funding for my upcoming interviews with daniel quinn and my presentation at the environmental justice 2017 conference in sydney, australia.