Skip to Content

Replaceability argument

« Back to Glossary Index

– Henry S. Salt termed the replaceability argument as the logic of the larder.
– Jeremy Bentham endorsed a variant of the argument in 1789.
– David George Ritchie used the argument in 1895 in response to Henry S. Salt’s vegetarianism assertions.
– Leslie Stephen described the argument for humanity as weak in 1896.
Peter Singer agreed with Salt’s view in his book “Animal Liberation” in 1975.

See also:
– Antinatalism
Ethics of eating meat
– The deprivation argument
– The nonidentity problem
– “Every Sperm Is Sacred,” a satire about the deprivation argument.

– Nicolas Delon discussed the Replaceability Argument in the Ethics of Animal Husbandry in 2016.
– Gaverick Matheny and Kai M. A. Chan wrote about Human Diets and Animal Welfare in 2005.
– Tatjana Višak explored the Replaceability Argument in her book in 2015.
– Works by David George Ritchie, Leslie Stephen, and Henry S. Salt are referenced.
– Anna Peterson reviewed Tatjana Višak’s book in 2014.

Further reading:
– “Consequentialism and Nonhuman Animals” edited by Douglas W. Portmore in 2020.
Daniel Dombrowski’s article on The Replaceability Argument in 2001.
– Various authors and works related to animal rights and vegetarianism are listed.

Additional sections:
– No additional sections provided.

The replaceability argument, or the logic of the larder, is a philosophical argument that has been used to reject vegetarianism. It holds that consuming nonhuman animal products is good for animals because if they were not consumed, fewer animals would be brought into existence. The argument has particularly been engaged with within the context of utilitarianism.

« Back to Glossary Index