Why the diner is not defended: a critical examination of the diner's defence

With the well-received reception of plant-based foods, and the advent of cultured meat, the debate over the permissibility of the consumption of non-human animals are set to come back in the spotlight. Following an examination of arguments in the field of moral vegetarianism, I examine the Diner’s Defence by Abelard Podgorski in its attempt to justify the consumption of meat by avoiding the controversial commitments of the moral status of animals and their interests and show how it fails. I will also consider objections to my argument on behalf of Podgorski. Following the dialectic, proponents of the diner must bite the bullet and concede the permissibility of farming humans for consumption and/or/either organ usage or join in the controversial commitments debate to justify the consumption of meat. I will end my paper by discussing the future of the debate with cell-based meat entering the scene and its ethical concerns.Bachelor of Arts in Philosoph