Comparison Between Fred's Behavior And The Consumption Of Factory Animals

450 Words1 Page

In Norcross’ thought experiment, a man named Fred is convicted for torturing puppies for gustatory pleasure. In the fictional scenario, Fred damages his “godiva” gland in an accident and is unable to taste chocolate, something that gave him a lot of pleasure. However, Fred has somehow discovered that torturing puppies is a “cure” for this problem, so he mutilates puppies in his basement. The purpose of this scenario rests in Norcross’ thesis. Norcross believes that Fred’s behavior and the consumption of factory farm products are morally equivalent. Using this comparison, I am going to use the philosophy of Immanuel Kant show that Fred’s behavior is morally wrong and will respond to objections on this view. I believe that Fred’s behavior is morally impermissible. Killing an animal for human pleasure, whether it be a puppy, or a farm animal, is wrong. An objection to this would be that animals do not have the same rights as humans do, so killing them will not be morally wrong. I disagree that animals don’t have rights if it is the case that humans do. What separates us from animals that makes it ok to kill one and not the other? Some philosophers argue that the …show more content…

Humans who cannot reason (mentally disabled, infants, etc.) are essentially animals in the definition of the human and animal distinction, therefore it would be morally permissible to eat babies and the mentally handicapped. Obviously, consuming humans who cannot reason based on at temporary (or permanent) handicap would not be considered moral, so consuming animals (which is equivalent to this definition) is not moral either. Furthermore, using the logic of immanuel Kant, our duties to animals are indirect duties towards humanity. (Kant,1). So causing animals to suffer immensely for our pleasure is analogous to torturing another person for our pleasure. Due to this , fred’s behavior (and factory farm consumption) is morally

Show More
Related

  • Mad Cowboy

    2443 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...tempt to diffuse violence. To even state that mans use of animals is immoral, and to claim that we have no right over our lives and must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of beings that cannot even think or grasp the concept of morality is ridicules. We would be elevating amoral animals to a moral level that is higher than our own, thus granting animals rights is not only fictional but wrong. In the words of Mat Block “Cows or cats would eat us to if they had a chance. Do not mistake a cats respect for one that is dominate for love, they are killers plain and simple and if you do not believe me ask their friends the birds”

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Gary Steiner's Animal, Vegetable, Miserable

    1010 Words  | 3 Pages

    In which he describes the encounter between a man and a mouse, consequently, the writer determinates that there is certain connection between them, and that the mouse has also capacity to have thoughts, feel love and compassion. The connection between them is compared “a child of God” and the “holy creature” (Steiner 846). The writer concludes that as conscious beings, both individuals have the same level of dignity, therefore, the use of animals as food is considered an “unforgiveable”

    Read More

  • The Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

    1055 Words  | 3 Pages

    Throughout Kant’s, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, some questionable ideas are portrayed. These ideas conflict with the present views of most people living today.

    Read More

  • Mill’s Objection to Kant’s Moral Theory

    1356 Words  | 3 Pages

    If accurate, this is a debilitating criticism of Kant’s moral theory as he had intended it. Mill’s critique instead classifies Kant’s moral theory as a type of rule utilitarianism. Any action under Kant’s theory is tested as a general rule for the public, and if the consequences are undesirable, then the general rule is rejected. “Undesirable consequences” are, according to the more precise language of Mill’s utilitarianism, consequences which are not a result of producing the greatest happiness. Mill’s analysis hinges on the lack of logical contradiction found in Kant’s theory. Without a concrete incongruity, Kant may be no more than a rule utilitarian. However, Mill is mistaken; the Categorical Imperative does produce absolute contradictions, as will be demonstrated through examples.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Factory Farming: Alastair Norcross's Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases

    918 Words  | 2 Pages

    Norcross, Alastair. “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases.” Philosophical Perspectives 18, (2004): 229-245.

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Moral Responsibility And Free Will

    1431 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this essay I shall explore the question of moral responsibility and free will, by looking at, and comparing, ideas that stem from a Kantian philosophical position, and those that stem from a naturalist philosophical position. I will also consider the implications that follow from each position, when considering the issue of punishment. Furthermore, I will show that although Kantian and naturalist philosophers typically differ in some aspects, such as their concept of the source of free will, they find themselves in much the same position when it comes to determining when moral responsibility is applicable. However, when we turn to applying moral philosophy to the important practical issue of punishment, the Kantian position becomes incoherent as soon as we consider the possibility that free will does not exist. Conversely, a naturalist position, particularly one of the consequentialist tradition, remains capable of answering such an important normative question, regardless of whether its notion of free will turns out to be correct or incorrect. Ultimately then, I will suggest that it is the naturalist philosopher who is in the better position to tackle the normative question of punishment, that arises in applied moral philosophy.

    Read More

  • Conformity In Animal Farm

    915 Words  | 2 Pages

    John F. Kennedy once said “Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth.” What Kennedy meant is that being a conformist will make people not able to make choices. Conformists follow certain rules and do not have any freedom as human beings. An animal named Boxer from the novel called Animal Farm by George Orwell, is always working hard to make the farm better and inspired other animals to work hard as well. Martin Luther King Jr. is a civil right leader who fight for the freedom of African Americans. Many people think that conformity is the best thing to do, so they won’t get in trouble. But sometimes people think nonconformity is the best way to solve the problems that are happening like Luther did for his people and his country. The nature of conformity and nonconformity is that there will be short term effect, but there will long term benefits in the future.

    Read More

  • Norcross: Torturing Puppies And Eating Meat Summary

    1037 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Alastair Norcross: The Marginal Case

    1872 Words  | 4 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Korean Dog Eating Tradition

    1186 Words  | 3 Pages

    The strongest argument against the dog meat industry centers on the treatment of the dogs that are often killed by ?beating, strangling, [and] boiling? instead of more humane methods such as electrocution. Unnecessary cruelty against animals is universally considered wrong, and is in many cases illegal, and that is what makes this argument effective. Saletan addresses this argument logically, with the simple fact that in the interest of humane treatment of dogs ?South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry.? This simple fact exposes a fundamental hypocrisy within the opposing viewpoint. Saletan argues that it is the same activists who base their arguments on ending cruelty against dogs who are trying to keep new, more humane methods from being adopted. The activists condemn and deplore cruel ...

    Read More

  • Gone Baby Gone Analysis

    1140 Words  | 3 Pages

    What would you do if you had the opportunity to take and raise an innocent little girl whose mother is a drug addict? That was the dilemma Doyle, a sheriff, faced in the move Gone Baby Gone. Two detectives, Patrick and Angie, are on the case of finding a missing little girl, and they finally stumble on her at Doyle’s house. Doyle had assisted with parts of the case, and had said nothing. He took the little girl, so that she would have a better life. In the end, Patrick turns Doyle over to the authorities, and the little girl is returned to her mother. Who was moral in this situation? Patrick or Doyle? Patrick is a perfect example of Kant’s standard for morality by his action from and in accord with duty. In this essay, Kant’s theory will be explained and then applied to the actions of both Patrick and Doyle.

    Read More

  • A Defense of Euthanasia

    1271 Words  | 3 Pages

    The. Print. The. O’Neill, Onora. “Kantian Ethics.” A Companion to Ethics.

    Read More

  • Kant 's Three Propositions Of Morality

    1593 Words  | 4 Pages

    In Foundation of the Metaphysics of Morals Immanuel Kant presents three propositions of morality. In this paper I am going to explain the first proposition of morality that Kant states. Then I will assert a possible objection to Kant’s proposition by utilizing an example he uses known as the sympathetic person. Lastly, I will show a defense Kant could use against the possible objection to his proposition.

    Read More

  • Should We Be Vegetarians?

    1159 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Should People Become Vegetarian?

    1082 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ed by law because of murdering others, then it is wrong to kill animals as well.

    Read More

More about Comparison Between Fred's Behavior And The Consumption Of Factory Animals

Open Document