ABSTRACT
This chapter evaluates various arguments for the permissibility of eating animals that I don’t take to be compelling. These include various arguments that deny moral standing to animals, environmentalist and agrarian arguments, taste-based considerations, health-based considerations, and worries to the effect that veganism would place an undue burden on certain people. I assume that each of these arguments is supposed to work on its own, that is, the value of taste alone is supposed to show that some standard argument for veganism isn’t successful. The takeaway from the discussion is that while these arguments don’t succeed, some of them could be rehabilitated if the reasons favoring dietary change are much weaker than is standardly thought.
