What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest
Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based tradi...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Emmerman, Karen S. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© Springer Nature B.V. 2019 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Ethical theory and moral practice - Springer Netherlands, 1998, 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:22 ; year:2019 ; number:1 ; month:02 ; pages:77-91 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2066601241 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2066601241 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503053645.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2066601241 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 100 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 1 |a 5,1 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a PHILOS |q DE-12 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Emmerman, Karen S. |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Animals | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ecofeminism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Veganism | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Foodways | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Basic interests | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Nonbasic interests | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Conflicts of interest | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Ethical theory and moral practice |d Springer Netherlands, 1998 |g 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 |w (DE-627)234523336 |w (DE-600)1395203-1 |w (DE-576)066011205 |x 1386-2820 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:22 |g year:2019 |g number:1 |g month:02 |g pages:77-91 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-PHILOS | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_607 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2002 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2007 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 22 |j 2019 |e 1 |c 02 |h 77-91 | ||
| author_variant |
k s e ks kse |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:13862820:2019----::htlvgtooihtncfmnsapoctitrnmlnitau |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid Emmerman, Karen S. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 aut What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice Springer Netherlands, 1998 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 (DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 1386-2820 nnns volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 22 2019 1 02 77-91 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid Emmerman, Karen S. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 aut What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice Springer Netherlands, 1998 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 (DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 1386-2820 nnns volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 22 2019 1 02 77-91 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid Emmerman, Karen S. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 aut What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice Springer Netherlands, 1998 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 (DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 1386-2820 nnns volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 22 2019 1 02 77-91 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid Emmerman, Karen S. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 aut What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice Springer Netherlands, 1998 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 (DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 1386-2820 nnns volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 22 2019 1 02 77-91 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 doi (DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid Emmerman, Karen S. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 aut What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice Springer Netherlands, 1998 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 (DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 1386-2820 nnns volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 AR 22 2019 1 02 77-91 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Ethical theory and moral practice 22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91 volume:22 year:2019 number:1 month:02 pages:77-91 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
| dewey-raw |
100 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Ethical theory and moral practice |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Emmerman, Karen S. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-02-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
234523336 |
| dewey-sort |
3100 |
| id |
OLC2066601241 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2066601241</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503053645.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2066601241</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmerman, Karen S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Nature B.V. 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Animals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ecofeminism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Veganism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foodways</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Basic interests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nonbasic interests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Conflicts of interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Ethical theory and moral practice</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)234523336</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1395203-1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)066011205</subfield><subfield code="x">1386-2820</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:77-91</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_607</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">77-91</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Emmerman, Karen S. |
| spellingShingle |
Emmerman, Karen S. ddc 100 ssgn 1 fid PHILOS misc Animals misc Ecofeminism misc Veganism misc Foodways misc Basic interests misc Nonbasic interests misc Conflicts of interest misc Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| authorStr |
Emmerman, Karen S. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)234523336 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
1386-2820 |
| topic_title |
100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest Animals Ecofeminism Veganism Foodways Basic interests Nonbasic interests Conflicts of interest Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
| topic |
ddc 100 ssgn 1 fid PHILOS misc Animals misc Ecofeminism misc Veganism misc Foodways misc Basic interests misc Nonbasic interests misc Conflicts of interest misc Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 100 ssgn 1 fid PHILOS misc Animals misc Ecofeminism misc Veganism misc Foodways misc Basic interests misc Nonbasic interests misc Conflicts of interest misc Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
| topic_browse |
ddc 100 ssgn 1 fid PHILOS misc Animals misc Ecofeminism misc Veganism misc Foodways misc Basic interests misc Nonbasic interests misc Conflicts of interest misc Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Ethical theory and moral practice |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
234523336 |
| dewey-tens |
100 - Philosophy |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Ethical theory and moral practice |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)234523336 (DE-600)1395203-1 (DE-576)066011205 |
| title |
What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2066601241 (DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p |
| title_full |
What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| author_sort |
Emmerman, Karen S. |
| journal |
Ethical theory and moral practice |
| journalStr |
Ethical theory and moral practice |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
77 |
| author_browse |
Emmerman, Karen S. |
| container_volume |
22 |
| class |
100 VZ 1 5,1 ssgn PHILOS DE-12 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Emmerman, Karen S. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0002-1687-5800 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800 |
| dewey-full |
100 |
| title_sort |
what’s love got to do with it? an ecofeminist approach to inter-animal and intra-cultural conflicts of interest |
| title_auth |
What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| abstract |
Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. © Springer Nature B.V. 2019 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-PHILOS SSG-OLC-PHI GBV_ILN_607 GBV_ILN_2002 GBV_ILN_2007 GBV_ILN_4012 |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
234523336 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6 |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T04:51:52.939Z |
| _version_ |
1803622770740822016 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2066601241</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503053645.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2066601241</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10677-019-09978-6-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">100</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1</subfield><subfield code="a">5,1</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">PHILOS</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-12</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Emmerman, Karen S.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0002-1687-5800</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">What’s Love Got to Do with it? An Ecofeminist Approach to Inter-Animal and Intra-Cultural Conflicts of Interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© Springer Nature B.V. 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Animals</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ecofeminism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Veganism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Foodways</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Basic interests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Nonbasic interests</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Conflicts of interest</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Moral repair, culture, gender, intersectional veganism, Jewish vegetarianism</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Ethical theory and moral practice</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer Netherlands, 1998</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2019), 1 vom: Feb., Seite 77-91</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)234523336</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)1395203-1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)066011205</subfield><subfield code="x">1386-2820</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:77-91</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10677-019-09978-6</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-PHILOS</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_607</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2002</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2007</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">77-91</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4007425 |