David Curnutt Case Study

Question 1. (690 Words)

Curnutt believes that the prima facie wrongness of animal-eating has not been defeated by additional factors which serve as the overriding reason. From his argument, David Curnutt claims that animal-eating is Ultima facia morally wrong. He further explains there are at least four grounds for overriding this wrong which include traditional-cultural, aesthetic, convenience, nutrition.

First, Animal-eating is a social practice that embeds well in today 's culture. Slavery and racism used to be part of modern culture at their time of occurrence; however, having that status is not what makes practices morally right or wrong. Take Slavery for example. It is wrong because it requires the coercion and degrading of innocent

The general public 's desire to eat animals and its status within a variety of social functions encourage the inexpensive and quick supply of meat. Again, this seems to say nothing about whether or not animal-eating is morally permissible. According to David Curnutt (2013), “It is often inconvenient and very difficult to keep a promise or discharge a parental duty or make a sacrifice for a stranger—or a friend. Few of us believe that convenience and ease have much of anything to do with whether these actions are morally right or wrong so why should it be different when it comes to killing animals for food?” (Disputed Moral Issues p.

Recent discussion regarding nutrition has focused on the question of the adequacy of a meatless diet for overall health. This probably provides the best reason for overriding the wrongness of killing animals. Curnutt asks his audience to understand that no moral agent can be required to destroy your health for the sake of others; therefore, a diet having this consequence is not morally justified. Does vegetarianism put an individual 's health at serious risk?

Kathryn Paxton George has argued that a vegetarian diet would make several people worse off in their overall well-being than they would otherwise be if they ate animals. Evelyn Pluhar has disputed many of George’s findings by arguing that vitamin and mineral supplementation; as well as appropriate plan sources will alleviate any deficiencies. George then responded that Pluhar had either misinterpreted or willingly ignored certain facts of the studies she had cited