Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(2)
Their program of "rational eating" aimed to instruct the poor to keep food expenses within the limits of their (modest) budgets.
Reason does not cause eating as something separate from it, and as an efficient cause; on the contrary, human eating is not adequately described formally unless it is described as rational eating.
Similar(57)
However I cannot see a rational argument for saying eating dogs or cats is barbaric while eating pork or beef is fine.
This recalls Holm's (2003) observation about the coexistence of multiple rationalities shaping ordinary eating practices, and suggests less targeted and (technically) rational purposes than those rehearsed by Niva's (2007) Finnish respondents.
It starts with rational routines, napping and eating and stretching at certain times to prime the body.
But instead, it began to seem that formulating a truly rational rationale for not eating animals, at least while consuming all sorts of other organisms, was difficult, maybe even impossible.
People are faced with making rational decisions about whether to eat fish or not and what fish to eat.
Yet people cannot make rational decisions about whether to eat fish and what kinds of fish to eat unless they have information on the risks from different choices.
On purely rational grounds, human beings would eat only what's necessary to sustain life.
So we have to ask ourselves, is there any rational argument for humans to eat bluefin tuna, wild, ranched or farmed?
If you're hungry, then you're much less likely to make rational decisions about what to eat next.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com