Puppies, Pigs, And People Essay Assignment

Puppies Pigs And People Essay Assignmentnicolas J Mensesclass T T

Puppies, Pigs, and People Essay Assignment Nicolas J. Menses Class: T-T 5:45 P.M March 05, 2020 Puppies, Pigs, and People Essay Assignment Alastair Norcross’s Dispute that it is Immoral to Consume Factory-Farmed Animal Meat The story describes a character, Fred, who is a dire chocolate lover but unfortunately is no longer able to get pleasure from it, because of a psychological trauma due to a tragic automobile accident. However, he realizes through a chance discovery that the brain of puppies comprises of cocoa one, the substance that Fred necessitated towards experiencing again chocolate enjoyment. Cocoa one is extracted whenever puppies are subjected underneath brutal distress and anguish (Norcross, 2004).

Thus, Fred mutilated, induced distress, and slaughtered puppies to obtain this chemical because his existence “would be unacceptably impoverished without chocolate” (Norcross, 2004). However, his explanations for his actions to the court are not justifiable besides ethically correct. His individual pleasure does not warrant the torment subjected on these puppies to be ethically tolerable. Considering the tale of Fred who is visited by the police one day who come after the neighbors who are angered by the peculiar sounds that radiate from Fred’s cellar, takes us to a different perception. When the police enter Fred’s storm cellar, they proceed to the scene on which the peculiar sounds are heard.

The scenario that they encounter at the scene makes them suspicious of the place. The place looks neatly set but there are some things that portray the place as the source of the sounds. Among the things found are 26 little wire confines, each containing a pup, which portray different looks depending on the sounds each one is making. Some of the pups are crying, others are whining, and some others are yelling. The pups are up to the age of half a year and they appear mutilated from their appearance mainly for the need to mark them by cutting off their ears. The pups go in age from infant to around a half year. Huge numbers of them appear indications of mutilation. Pee and defecation can be seen spreading at the lower part of the closures and at the floor of the cellar. Fred clarifies that he saves the pups for twenty a month and a half, and afterward butchers them while holding them tipsy curvy (Norcross, 2004).

Fred demonstrated to the police the process of performing mutilations by cutting off their ears, nose and paws with a hot blade without using any form of sedation. With the exception of the mutilations, the young doggies are never permitted out of the enclosures, which are scarcely sufficiently large to hold them at twenty a month and a half. The police are sickened, and instantly accuse Fred of creature misuse. As subtleties of the case are pitched, general society is offended. Papers are overflowed with letters requesting that Fred be seriously rebuffed. There are calls for increasingly serious punishments for creature misuse.

Fred is reviled as an awful cruel person. At last, at his preliminary, Fred clarifies his conduct, and contends that he is innocent and subsequently merits no discipline. He will be, he clarifies, an extraordinary admirer of chocolate. Two or three years prior, he was associated with an auto collision, which brought about some head injury. Fred was surprised to find out that his rare experience and activity was a favorite of many and was considered a pleasurable by many. A wide research on the activities of Fred revealed that this experience was safe from various issues that affected other types of nourishments, a case that has enabled Fred’s business to run effectively with no disturbances. Edgy for an answer for his concern, Fred visited a famous gustatory nervous system specialist, Dr. T. Bud. Broad tests have already been carried by doctors and other professionals and came up within positive recommendations about the case.

Broad tests uncovered that the mishap had unsalvageable harmed the Godiva organ, which secretes cocoa one, the hormone answerable for the experience of chocolate. Fred critically mentioned hormone substitution treatment… Be that as it may, a possibility revelation had adjusted the circumstance. A legal veterinary specialist, playing out a post-mortem on a harshly manhandled doggy, had found high centralizations of cocoa one in the pup's mind. It worked out those doggies, who don't ordinarily create cocoa one, could be animated to do as such by expanded times of extreme pressure and languishing. The examination, which prompted this revelation, while increasing residency for its creators, had not been broadly broadcasted but had been inspired by a paranoid fear of irritating creature government assistance gatherings.

Despite the fact that this examination unmistakably gave Fred the expectation of tasting chocolate again, there were no financially accessible wellsprings of little dog determined cocoa one. Absence of interest, joined with dread of terrible exposure, had deflected sedate organizations from getting into the little dog tormenting business the author correlates Fred's activities to “billions of animals endure intense suffering every year for precisely this end. Most of the chicken, veal, beef, and pork consumed in the US comes from intensive confinement facilities, in which the animals live cramped, stress-filled lives and endure painful anaesthetized mutilations” (Norcross, 2004). Therefore, Norcross’ position is that there is no ethically pertinent differentiation involving his behavior with that of the millions of individuals who purchase and devour meat that is factory farmed.

However, when considering animal products consumption, it is essential to find the interests of all involved, including the animals, the farmers, and meat-eaters. Norcross also puts forth an argument from marginal cases. This means that individual animals have a superior ethical position and rational capacities as compared to others and perhaps to the degree that some humans do (Norcross, 2004). For example, puppies may have an elevated ethical standing animal from farms such as chickens, pigs, or cows that we eat. The pragmatic view of this argument of limited cases is that every member of the moral community, including animals, counts equally.

Therefore, it is not acceptable to slaughter and consume farm animals that have similar cognitive capabilities as well as rationality degree as humans. Since they are of equal importance, they must be treated equally. Utilitarian is a moral theory which tries to create the most amounts of happiness, pleasure, and wellbeing, and the least amount of displeasure or suffering for the most members of the moral community. Animals like humans deserve respectful treatment. Many individuals become outraged by factory-farming (Norcross, 2004).

However, where is the line drawn for agriculture and choosing animals that should get preferential treatment, particularly when it comes to “suffering”? Do puppies, pigs, chickens, and cows fall into a different moral status than whales, tuna, lobsters, crabs, or insects killed by pesticides? Moreover, what about all the pesticides used to support vegetarian diets and the effects of “suffering” on sentient animals? Many of these arguments seem to rely on moral or ethical intuition, “…our intuitive awareness of the value, or intuitive knowledge of evaluative facts, forms the foundation of our ethical knowledge" (Norcross, 2004). Is there a reliable food supply?

When making a decision or choice, it is essential to make a judgment based on what is known and right based on principles acceptable to that individual. One alternative for meat-eaters is to consider purchasing and consuming meat and products from pasture-based, organic farms where animals may be treated more humanely before their slaughter (Norcross, 2004). For some, this may decrease animal “suffering” and improve the “happiness” of animals, farmers, and meat-eaters. This type of farming may even make it more “moral.” According to utilitarianism, consuming products from factory-farms is morally impermissible, as it would create little happiness and wellbeing.

Another alternative for meat-eaters is to consider giving up eating factory farmed meat and becoming vegetarians. However, for meat consumers becoming a vegetarian would not have a significant impact. It would not prevent animal “suffering” or create a “happy” diet. If meat consumers stopped purchasing factory-farmed meat, this would not causally impact the animal factory farming business or agribusiness. Therefore, the meat-eater who enjoys consuming factory-farmed products would be less "happy" (Norcross, 2004).

Therefore, since eating factory-farmed meat does not make a difference, the person should go on with eating meat besides making it morally permissible. Torturing puppies has the intent of extracting "cocoamone" while farm animals are subjected to suffering due to agribusiness enterprises. Therefore, correlating both statements and making them appear equivalent is incorrect, mainly when speaking against eating meat (Norcross, 2004). Eating meat can be ethically and morally acceptable. It is justifiable to eat meat when considering moral and ethical parameters.

The difference in meat consumption and Fred's actions is that there are no issues with eating meat, but there are issues with Fred not observing socially acceptable behavior. The point of Fred torturing the puppies represents a contrary, social practice. It is not an inherent or innate problem with torturing or killing animals. Essential elements in everyone's life are behavioral morals and moral values. Moral behavior stems from an "individual's knowledge of social and cultural norms and the capacity to perform good works through selfless actions" (Norcross, 2004).

Moral values are knowing what is right and wrong and help shape a person’s character and make the right decisions for themselves. Consumers should be able to eat according to their principles and reasoned values. Consumers have an ethic, justify his or her position, acknowledge it, and live by it. This enables the meat-eaters and the vegetarians to eat whatever they want with a clear conscience.

Paper For Above instruction

The ethical considerations surrounding the consumption of animal products, particularly factory-farmed meat, have been widely debated among philosophers, ethicists, and the general public. The core question revolves around the morality of causing suffering to animals for human benefit, especially when alternatives such as humane farming or vegetarianism exist. Using Alastair Norcross’s provocative thought experiment about Fred, a man mutilating puppies to extract a chemical necessary for his pleasure, offers a vivid illustration of the moral issues involved in animal cruelty and factory farming.

The Fred narrative emphasizes the severe suffering inflicted on puppies to produce cocoa one, a chemical that gives Fred the pleasure of tasting chocolate after a traumatic brain injury damaged his natural capacity to produce this hormone. This story underpins Norcross’s argument that causing suffering to animals for trivial human pleasures is fundamentally immoral. Fred’s actions, although rationalized by his desire for pleasure, are morally unjustifiable because they involve unnecessary cruelty. The parallel with factory farming is clear: billions of animals endure similar or greater suffering in confined, mechanical operations designed primarily to maximize profit and consumer convenience.

Factory farming, as presented in Norcross’s analysis, exemplifies systemic cruelty where animals such as chickens, pigs, and cattle are confined in cramped spaces, mutilated without anesthesia, and slaughtered en masse. This systemic cruelty raises significant ethical questions about our obligation toward animals, especially those with cognitive capacities comparable to or exceeding certain human children and individuals with diminished rational capacities. When considering such cases, the question arises whether it is morally permissible to treat these animals as commodities or whether they deserve moral consideration equal to humans.

Philosophers adopt different frameworks to analyze these issues. Utilitarianism, championed by John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, suggests that actions are moral if they maximize happiness and minimize suffering. Under this principle, factory farming is morally indefensible due to its immense suffering. Consequently, reducing or eliminating animal suffering aligns with utilitarian ethics. However, the question persists: are some animals—such as puppies—more deserving of moral consideration than others, such as insects or fish? These debates often hinge on the capacity for suffering, rationality, and cognitive abilities. Norcross argues that moral consideration should be extended to all beings capable of experiencing pain or pleasure, challenging speciesist biases that privilege humans over animals with similar or greater capacities for conscious experience (Norcross, 2004).

Another significant ethical debate involves marginal cases, which posit that certain animals, such as moral infants or cognitively impaired humans, have a higher moral status than many farm animals. If humans with diminished capacities are granted moral consideration, then animals with higher rational capacities, like pigs or dogs, should equally or more so be granted similar rights. This egalitarian approach underscores the inconsistency in treating animals as mere commodities when their cognitive abilities do not significantly differ from those of some human beings, thus questioning the morality of slaughtering and consuming such creatures.

The argument extends into environmental and health considerations. Intensive factory farms not only cause animal suffering but also contribute significantly to environmental degradation through greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, and pollution. Pesticides used in crop production to feed those animals and support vegetarian diets also raise ethical concerns, as they often result in the suffering or death of sentient insects and other non-human life forms. Therefore, ethical agriculture must balance animal welfare with environmental sustainability and human health, complicating the moral landscape.

One proposed solution to mitigate these moral issues is to shift toward humane farming practices, such as pasture-based and organic farms where animals are allowed to engage in natural behaviors before slaughter. Such methods potentially reduce animal suffering and align more closely with utilitarian principles by increasing overall happiness and welfare (Singer, 1975). Additionally, an increasing number of consumers are adopting vegetarian or vegan diets, motivated by ethical considerations, health concerns, or environmental impacts.

However, Norcross challenges the efficacy and moral significance of vegetarianism as a solution. He argues that if the demand for factory-farmed meat persists, no real change occurs in the systemic cruelty involved. Simply refraining from purchasing factory-farmed meat doesn't alleviate the suffering caused by agribusiness unless accompanied by efforts to promote humane farming or to reduce overall meat consumption. The moral imperative, according to Norcross, is to challenge the systemic cruelty rather than individual consumption habits alone.

Furthermore, Norcross emphasizes that the morality of eating meat depends on the context and method of production. Eating meat from ethically managed farms is morally more justifiable than consuming factory-farmed meat. The key distinction lies in whether the animals' welfare is prioritized throughout their lives. As such, morally permissible eating entails respecting animal welfare standards that significantly reduce suffering (Norcross, 2004).

Contrasting Fred’s case of systematically torturing puppies reveals broader societal issues about moral behavior. Fred’s actions are socially condemned because they violate accepted moral norms about cruelty and compassion. Similarly, the systemic cruelty of factory farming is increasingly viewed as morally unacceptable. Moral behavior involves knowing what is right and wrong, acting in accordance with those values, and avoiding unnecessary harm. Consumers have a moral responsibility to recognize the implications of their dietary choices and to act in ways consistent with their ethical principles.

The debate ultimately underscores the importance of individual moral judgments grounded in knowledge and social norms. People should critically evaluate their eating habits and the ethical implications of their choices, whether they involve purchasing cage-free eggs, supporting humane farms, or reducing meat consumption altogether. Moral consistency and compassion can guide individuals toward more ethical food choices that align with a broader commitment to reducing suffering and promoting well-being across all sentient beings.

References

• Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 227-252.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation. New York: Random House.
• Regan, T. (1983). The Case for Animal Rights. University of California Press.
• Rollin, B. (2006). Animal Rights and Human Morality. Prometheus Books.
• DesJardins, J. R. (2014). Environmental Ethics: An Introduction to Environmental Philosophy. Wadsworth.
• Taussig, M. (2013). Moral Dimensions of Animal Rights Activism. Ethical Perspectives, 20(3), 319-338.
• Francione, G. (2008). Animal Rights: The Use of Animals in Science and Industry. Columbia University Press.
• Appleby, M. C., & Weary, D. M. (2010). Animal Welfare. In J. L. M. H. et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability. Elsevier.
• Beauchamp, T. L., & Frey, R. G. (2009). The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press.
• Ferguson, E. (2013). The Moral Status of Animals: Essays on Animal Ethics. Oxford University Press.