Alastair Norcross introduces a very controversial case. He compares the actions of Fred as being morally equal to factory farming. Norcross presents the Marginal case and the Analogy argument. There are many objections to his beliefs such as; the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions. Also, the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. And lastly, human beings have a greater moral status than nonhumans. (Norcross, 285) I disagree with Norcross’s statement saying that Fred’s behavior and that of people who consume factory-farmed meat is morally equivalent.
Fred had gotten into a car accident and damaged his Godiva gland. This gland is responsible for producing the hormone Cocoamone. The damage to his Godiva gland resulted in Fred being unable to taste chocolate. Consuming Cocoamone is the only way Fred could experience the taste of chocolate again. Some research showed that after long periods of torture to puppies, that
…show more content…
puppies would produce large quantities of Cocoamone. So Fred thought he found the solution to his problem. He kept 26 puppies in tiny cages, never letting them out, forcing them sit in their feces. He would torture the puppies in numerous ways, without anesthesia, for twenty-six weeks. Then at the end of the six months, he would viciously kill them. With this amount of torture, it only composed enough Cocoamone for one week. When Fred was arrested, people were outraged. In court, he defends himself saying puppies are just animals and are not as important as human pleasure, and that torturing puppies is ethically the same thing as factory farming. Norcross also presents the analogy argument. In this argument, he creates a story about a man eating chocolate mousse and compares it to eating meat. This man is amazed at how good it was and asked what was in the chocolate mousse. He was horrified to find that they used Cocoamone to enhance the chocolate taste. As a result he claims: if it’s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, it’s wrong to support factory farming. It is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure. So, therefore, it’s wrong to support factory farming. (NOTES) In both the Marginal and Analogy arguments, objections can be made. The first objection to Norcross’s argument is that the suffering of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side effect of a system that is a means to the gustatory pleasure of millions.
(Norcross, pg#) This statement is backed by the doctrine of double effect. The doctrine double effect states that there is a major ethical difference between intended consequences and consequences that are merely foreseen. Many people use this as a way to defend the consequences of war. People had to die as a result for the greater good. So in the end the good outweighed the bad. Fred is at fault because he intends on the torture of the puppies as a means to his pleasure. Even if people know about the treatment of the animals, meat eaters don’t intend on the
suffering. In response to this objection, Norcross’s Fred story could be changed into a scenario where the Fred does not need to torture the puppies in order to collect Cocoamone. Fred’s basement is small, with no ventilation, and is not properly cleaned. There suffering could be looked at as a side effect of just their living conditions in Fred’s basement. Also, the doctrine of double effect requires that the good outweigh the bad. Norcross would disagree and say that there is an abundance more bad than good in this situation and with the consumption of factory farmed animals. I think that the good does outweigh the bad when it comes to the consuming of factory-farmed animals. The production and consumption of meat help millions of people survive and eat well-balanced diets. Factory farms have helped society produce meat in a cheap, efficient way, benefiting us with more revenue than expenses. It allows everyone to be able to buy food for affordable prices, and also benefits many communities. Large factory farms tend to invest and give back to the community. This benefits many people. If we rely on small family farms product would be much more expensive, and the likelihood of communities excelling and profiting would go down. The living conditions in larger factory farms may not be as good as smaller family farms, but we have to make small sacrifices to provide for our nation. The living conditions of the farmed animals are designed to protect them. The housing protects the animals from horrible weather conditions, disease, and predators. Also with the way the animals are housed, it makes it more accessible for farmers to tend to both sick and healthy animals. Fred was cutting off the noses of the puppies, causing them a great deal of pain. Farmers want to help heal the sick animals and end their lives as quickly and painlessly as possible. The process is not dragged out like in Fred’s case. According to http://www.indianasoybean.com, the livestock industry is highly regulated by state and federal authorities including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). It’s not uncommon for today’s livestock farmer to hire staff whose sole job is to make certain the operation stays in compliance with state and federal regulations. With farming being regulated farmers who don’t keep up to the standard would suffer consequences or be shut down. Because of this we can be assured that our meat is coming from farms that are being held to a moral standard/ correct ethical code of life??? Another objection to Norcross’s theory is that the individual consumers lack the power to put an end to factory farming. Maybe reword? (NOTES) We are causally impotent. One person becoming a vegetarian would not put an end to factory farming or make a difference. Fred however, can put an end to the torturing of the puppies by giving up the luxury of chocolate. He alone can stop; this would seize all the pain the puppies were enduring. The size of the factory farmed meat industry is too large for just one single person to impact it at all. For example, you are at McDonalds, and there is one Mcchicken left. There is nothing you could have done to stop the killing of that chicken; it has already been killed and prepared as a sandwich. So what is the harm in eating it? Either time will run out, and McDonalds will have to throw it away or someone else will buy it. So at this point there is nothing you can do. So you might as well enjoy the Mcchicken sandwich. Norcross denies the claim of causal impotence. The meat industry would not respond to just one person giving up meat, but everyone adds up and can make a difference. He uses the example of each person eating 25 chickens a year. If 10,000 people gave up chicken, then 250,000 chickens would be affected. This would impact the industry on a larger scale, leading them not to kill 250,000 chickens and reduce the amount of breeding. Norcross believes that the individual can have an impact by helping reach the threshold (10,000 people) faster or by being that 10,000th person to reach the threshold, attributing to saving 250,000 chickens lives. So in response to the Mcchicken analogy; yes that chicken could not have been saved, but it could potentially lead to the reduction of mcchickens needed at that Mcdonalds, therefor reducing the amount of chicken needed. Norcross presents the Marginal cases argument. In this argument, he claims that it is permissible to kill and eat farm animals only if it is permissible to kill and eat humans with the same cognitive capacities. It is not permissible to kill and eat humans who have the same cognitive capacities as farm animals. Therefore, it is not permissible to kill and eat farm animals. (Notes?) Norcross disagrees with the statement that “one may claim that it is generally wrong to kill humans, but not animals, because humans are rational, and animals are not.” (Norcross, 2008) Norcross believes that humans don’t have the rationalization to hold themselves to a higher status than animals. Norcross states, “we don’t accept discrimination in other spheres of judgment.” (IDK source) He also points out that some humans may not be capable of moral reasoning, many may lack it, for example, infants or the handicapped. Another point he makes is that while some human beings may lack a certain property of rationality, it may be present in a nonhuman. Humans are much more intelligent than animals; we can have much higher and complex thought processes, along with greater IQs. We are rational beings with the ability to communicate with one another on different levels. According to http://speakingofresearch.com “Our ability to function in daily life is aided by organizing the world into different categories or kinds of living beings and making broad assessments of their interests and moral status.” Our brain helps up assess different species. For example, while driving you would swerve to avoid a squirrel, but not if swerving would harm a child. In this situation, we would not need to look specifically into the interests and moral status of the squirrel and child. The child has more moral status than the squirrel. Another thing to consider is the life of the mentally handicapped and disabled or young children. They may not yet have the rational capacity, but that does not mean they cannot achieve it. Some disabled may have been completely rational human beings before getting sick or hurt. Normal healthy human beings have the ability to be moral agents. Disabled or sick, have something wrong with them sometimes inhibiting them from achieving this, but either way they had space in their brain were that ability could have been reached. So achieving rationality or not, humans initially have the capacity to do so. Cows, on the other hand, when completely healthy don’t have the ability to achieve moral agency and take responsibility for there actions. As human beings, we have the knowledge capacity to interpret what is right and wrong. We can make observations and correct things if necessary. Animals could never accomplish this action. This is why many are led to believe that humans have a higher moral status then nonhumans. Carl Cohen states, “humans engage in moral reflection; humans are morally autonomous; humans are members of moral communities, recognizing just claims against their own interest” (SOURCE) To eliminate factory farming altogether would be impossible. As a society, today factory farmed animals are intended for personal consumption. Continuing the industry of factory farmed meats benefits us as a society, Good outweigh bad?? Side effect… Puppies and farm animals different. Overall can push for better living conditions but sacrifices for USA need to be made… to benefit us all, it is ethical for us to make sure rules/ regulations of Factory farms are being enforced.
Norcross expresses that when he said that “it is, of course unfortunate for Fred that he can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate, but that in no way excuses the imposition of severe suffering on the puppies.” Therefore, Norcross believes Fred is morally wrong for having the puppies suffer in order for him to be able to enjoy the taste of chocolate again. In Norcross’ next premises, he believes that people whom purchase and eat factory farm meats while knowing what torture that animals endure in the farms are equally morally wrong like Fred with the puppies. People who consume factory meats are doing that for their own pleasure too, like Fred. According to Norcross, people do not need to consume meat for health reasons. Norcross points out that the majority of people who eliminate meats from their diet, do not suffer any ill health issues and can live healthy without
In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. However, it is known that puppies under duress produce cocoamone, the hormone Fred needs in order to enjoy chocolate again. Since no one is in the cocoamone business, Fred sets up twenty six puppy cages, and mutilates them resulting in cocoamone production in the puppy’s brains. Each week he slaughters a dog and consumes the cocoamone. When he is caught, he explains to the judge and jury that his actions are no different from factory farming because he is torturing and killing puppies for gustatory pleasure similar to how factory farms torture and kill cows, chickens, etc. for other people’s gustatory pleasure. You, the reader are meant to think that this is unacceptable, and therefore, denounce factory farming. Although there are many valid objections to this argument, I am in agreement with Norcross and shall be supporting him in this paper. I think the two most practical objections are that (1) most consumers don’t know how the animals are treated whereas Fred clearly does, and (2) if Fred stops enjoying chocolate, no puppies will be tortured, but if a person becomes a vegetarian, no animals will be saved due to the small impact of one consumer. I shall explain the reasoning behind these objections and then present sound responses in line with Norcross’ thinking, thereby refuting the objections.
American consumers think of voting as something to be done in a booth when election season comes around. In fact, voting happens with every swipe of a credit card in a supermarket, and with every drive-through window order. Every bite taken in the United States has repercussions that are socially, politically, economically, and morally based. How food is produced and where it comes from is so much more complicated than the picture of the pastured cow on the packaging seen when placing a vote. So what happens when parents are forced to make a vote for their children each and every meal? This is the dilemma that Jonathan Safran Foer is faced with, and what prompted his novel, Eating Animals. Perhaps one of the core issues explored is the American factory farm. Although it is said that factory farms are the best way to produce a large amount of food at an affordable price, I agree with Foer that government subsidized factory farms use taxpayer dollars to exploit animals to feed citizens meat produced in a way that is unsustainable, unhealthy, immoral, and wasteful. Foer also argues for vegetarianism and decreased meat consumption overall, however based on the facts it seems more logical to take baby steps such as encouraging people to buy locally grown or at least family farmed meat, rather than from the big dogs. This will encourage the government to reevaluate the way meat is produced. People eat animals, but they should do so responsibly for their own benefit.
In the early twentieth century, at the height of the progressive movement, “Muckrakers” had uncovered many scandals and wrong doings in America, but none as big the scandals of Americas meatpacking industry. Rights and responsibilities were blatantly ignored by the industry in an attempt to turn out as much profit as possible. The meat packers did not care if poor working conditions led to sickness and death. They also did not care if the spoiled meat they sold was killing people. The following paper will discuss the many ways that rights and responsibilities were not being fulfilled by the meat packing industry.
Peter Singer's paper “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”has made a drastic impact in modern applied ethics. The simple nature of the paper makes for an easy read, yet the point clearly set out by Singer is at ends with the targeted audiences' popular beliefs. Although most will object to Singer's idea by throwing away a basic principle of most moral theories, I wish to deny Singer's solution by showing that the ability to apply Singer's conclusion is not reasonable and does not address the problem's core.
In the book Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer, the author talks about, not only vegetarianism, but reveals to us what actually occurs in the factory farming system. The issue circulating in this book is whether to eat meat or not to eat meat. Foer, however, never tries to convert his reader to become vegetarians but rather to inform them with information so they can respond with better judgment. Eating meat has been a thing that majority of us engage in without question. Which is why among other reasons Foer feels compelled to share his findings about where our meat come from. Throughout the book, he gives vivid accounts of the dreadful conditions factory farmed animals endure on a daily basis. For this reason Foer urges us to take a stand against factory farming, and if we must eat meat then we must adapt humane agricultural methods for meat production.
Christopher McCandless, a young American who was found dead in summer of 1992 in wild land in Alaska, wrote in his diary about his moral struggle regarding killing a moose for survival. According to Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Chris had to abandon most of the meat since he lacked the knowledge of how to dismantle and preserve it (166-168). Not only did he have a moral dilemma to kill a moose, but also had a deep regret that a life he had taken was wasted because of his own fault. He then started recognizing what he ate as a precious gift from the nature and called it “Holy Food” (Krakauer 168). Exploring relationships between human beings and other animals arouses many difficult questions: Which animals are humans allowed to eat and which ones are not? To which extent can humans govern other animals? For what purposes and on which principles can we kill other animals? Above all, what does it mean for humans to eat other animals? The answer may lie in its context. Since meat-eating has been included and remained in almost every food culture in the world throughout history and is more likely to increase in the future due to the mass production of meat, there is a very small chance for vegetarianism to become a mainstream food choice and it will remain that way.
Most of us do not think twice about the foods we pick up from the supermarket. Many Americans have a preconceived belief that the food being sold to us is safe, and withholds the highest standard of quality. Certainly, compared to many places in the world, this is true. But is the United States sincerely trying to carry out these standards, or have we begun to see a reverse in the health and safety of our food- and more explicitly in our meat? Jonathan Foer, author of “Eating Animals” argues for reform within the food industry- not only for the humane treatment of animals but moreover for our own health. Although Foer exposes the ills within the food industries in order to persuade readers to change their diets for the better, his “vegetarianism or die” assessment may be too extreme for most Americans. The true ills do not start with the meat, but with industrialized production of it through methods practiced by factory farming.
For many Christians, faith has little to do with what's in the fridge. Lunch with Christ would raise issues far more problematic than choice of food. However, I propose that if the above-mentioned foods came from modern factory farms, Christ would not eat or drink them. I will argue that Christians are obligated to be morally concerned about animals, and that this obligation brings Christians into moral conflict with modern factory farms. Furthermore, I will argue that Catholic Social Teaching (hereafter "CST") should emphasize a theocentric basis for such obligation and conflict.
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
To ascribe an entity with moral status ― whether an adult human, infant, foetus, or non-human animal ― is to declare that its treatment by other moral agents is mo...
However, Hare’s pro demi-vegetarian argument provides an unequivocal view on the discussion of economic, ecological, and moral topics. While the look into market trends of meat is lacking Hare discusses a reality of the meat industry and its food competitors, that being the cost behind animal rearing and husbandry. While the high costs incurred does not entail permissibility the surrounding circumstances do. If fodder is grown on terrain only suitable for a pasture, then as a result husbandry and animal domestication (and later slaughter) is permissible because the economic consequences of harvesting crops would greatly outweigh the benefits and as such the community improves more from the meat/animal byproduct industry. This economical and ecological argument is one of several that Hare provides in his article Why I Am Only A Demi-Vegetarian, in addition to the market term being coined and reasoning behind
In this paper I will look at the argument made by James Rachels in his paper, The Moral Argument for Vegetarianism supporting the view that humans should be vegetarians on moral grounds. I will first outline the basis of Rachels’ argument supporting vegetarianism and his moral objection to using animals as a food source and critique whether it is a good argument. Secondly, I will look at some critiques of this kind of moral argument presented by R. G. Frey in his article, Moral Vegetarianism and the Argument from Pain and Suffering. Finally, I will show why I support the argument made by Frey and why I feel it is the stronger of the two arguments and why I support it.
We neatly separate animals into relatively artificial categories – “pets”, “wild animals”, and “farm animals”. These categories affect how we treat those within the category. For instance, our treatment of farm animals would be illegal if applied towards pets. If a shed filled with cages was then crammed by dogs so tightly that limits them to stretch or move freely, one would face strong social and legal sanction, but would probably differ in the case for chickens. According to two recent studies by Kristof Dhont and Gordon Hodson, it was observed that conservatives consume more meat and exploit animals more because they dismiss the threat that vegetarianism and veganism supposedly pose to traditions and cultural practice, and they feel more entitled to consume animals given human “superiority”. Aside from that, the study also examined the possibility of both conservatives and socialists in simply preferring the taste of meat thus consuming them. It appeared that the conservatives are more likely to consume more meat for reasons related to ideology, even after statistically removing the influence of hedonistically liking the taste of meat from the
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we