|Peter Singer, Animal Liberation ( New York: New York Review, 1975), pp. 202-34.|
|Michael Fox, "Animal Liberation: A Critique", Ethics 88 ( January 1978): 106.|
|I have no idea what Haussleiter ate; I am only suggesting that there is no indication in his work that philosophical vegetarianism is a contemporary issue.|
|A study of Eastern vegetarianism would surely be worthwhile, but it is beyond the bounds of the narrowly circumscribed philosophical treatment I intend. This contraction of vision will also force me to largely neglect varieties of vegetarianism in Greek culture that are more obviously due to myth or religion.|
|It has often been noticed that the Old Testament, despite characters such as Deborah, is a sexist document. What is little noticed is that it is equally unfair to animals; a woman and an animal are responsible for the Fall. For similar remarks on the Old Testament see Peter Singer, Animal Liberation, pp. 204-5. I owe a great debt to Singer chapter "Man's Dominion", pp. 202-34, for the development of chapter 1. Also of service is John Passmore , "The Treatment of Animals", Journal of the History of Ideas ( April-May 1975):195-218.|
|Singer, Animal Liberation, pp. 209, 210. See St. Augustine, The Catholic and Manichean Ways of Life, trans. D. A. Gallagher and L. J. Gallagher ( Boston: Catholic University Press, 1966), p. 102. Also see John Passmore, Man's Responsibility for Nature ( New York: Scribner's, 1974), p. 111.|
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: The Philosophy of Vegetarianism. Contributors: Daniel A. Dombrowski - Author. Publisher: University of Massachusetts Press. Place of publication: Amherst . Publication year: 1984. Page number: 141.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.