ABSTRACT
The most common and convincing arguments for the obligatoriness of vegetarianism appeal to the extensive, unnecessary harm caused to animals and to the environment through the commercial production of meat. Donald W. Bruckner has argued previously that the basis of these arguments – the principle that we are obligated to minimize unnecessary harm – implies that strict vegetarianism is immoral. Specifically, since far less harm is done to animals and to the environment by collecting and consuming roadkill than is done through the production of plants for food, the harm-minimization principle implies an obligation to integrate roadkill into our diets. So the principle of harm minimization used to support the obligatoriness of vegetarianism actually implies that strict vegetarianism is immoral. Several philosophers have found this counterargument worthy of attention and response. This chapter is a rejoinder to the concerns and objections those philosophers have raised.
