Norcross: Torturing Puppies and Eating Meat In Norcross agreement, he believes that people should not purchase factory farming meat because it is morally wrong. Norcross supports his beliefs with the use of an argument of analogy between Fred torturing puppies for the pleasure of chocolate and meats from factory farm raised animals. In Norcross’ argument of analogy, Fred can no longer enjoy chocolate from a traumatic brain injury. Therefore, Fred needs the chemical cocoamone to regain that pleasure. Fred discovers that a puppies’ brain contains the chemical cocoamone that will only excrete while enduring extreme suffering and stress. Fred accomplishes the creation of the chemical by keeping the puppies confined in a small caged area and mutilating …show more content…
However, billions of animals endure intense suffering every year for precisely this end.” Norcross was referring to the animals in a factory farms that produce meat to sell in supermarkets. Norcross explains the factory farms animals live cramped and stress-filled lives. The animals also undergo mutilations without any anesthesia. In the end of the factory farms’ animal life, they’re butchered for the production of meat such as chicken, veal, beef and pork to sell for a profit in places such as a grocery store or …show more content…
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
Alastair Norcross in his article “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal cases “expresses the moral dilemma based on factory farming. Norcross gives an example of a man named Fred. Fred has to torture puppies in order to be able to enjoy chocolate. This is because when puppies are brutally tortured and then brutally killed they release a chemical called cocoamone. This chemical enhances the taste of chocolate, so Fred is killing puppies for gustatory pleasure. Any morally sound person would be appalled at what Frank is doing to these puppies and that is the basis of Norcross’s article. He is arguing that raising animals on factory farms and what Fred is doing are both morally wrong, because in both cases we are brutally killing the
Pollan believes that American factory farms are places with technological sophistication, where animals are machines incapable of feeling pain (368). In other words, factory farms use plentiful of technology where they do not pay attention to animals feelings. For example, beef cattle who live outdoors are standing in their own waste, and factory farmers do not considered that wrong and unsanitary. Hurst alleges that “turkeys do walk around in their own waste, although they don’t seemed to mind”(5). This shows that factory farmers think that animals really don’t have feelings and really don’t care. Pollan also disagrees with industrial farming because he states that, “American industrial farms itself is redefined- as a protein production- and with it suffering” (369). He affirms this because industrial farming cages their animals. Interestingly, both authors believe that animals still die and suffer no matter what circumstances an animal is living. Pollan believes animals should be treated with respect and not be caged. On the other hand, Hurst asserts that “farmers do not cage their hogs because sadism, but because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go, as is being eaten by your mother”(6). So Hurst say that he cages animals to protect them. Also both authors believe that there needs to be ways to enrich the soil, so the farms can have bigger harvest, healthy plants, and keep cost down. However, Pollan believes that farmer should use compost. He states that “the finish compost will go to feed the grass;the grass, the cattle; the cattle , the chickens; and eventually all of the animals will feed us” (370). So he thinks compost is good for the farms. Hurst on the other hand, think manure and commercial fertilizer is good for the farms. Hurst spread poultry litter on pasture and this made cattle production possible in areas
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.
Over the past few decades, small and medium sized farms have been taken over by large-scale factory farms. These farms house billions of animals used for consumption each year. The conditions on factory farms are filthy, overcrowded and disease ridden. Animals forced to live out their lives on these farms are subject to extremely harsh conditions, such as mutilation, confinement and living spaces piled high with feces. Not only do conditions on factory farms make life for livestock absolutely miserable, but factory farms are also negatively impacting human health and the environment. The production and sale of meat has become a billion-dollar industry based upon the bloodshed of other sentient beings. With this being the case, at the very least, factory farms need to be properly regulated and companies involved need to be held accountable for their abuse.
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.
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.
The Meat industry treats their workers the same way they treat the animals. They treat these living beings as if they were worthless. Slaughterhouses kill thousands of hogs a day and pack thousands chickens tightly together like a jail-cell. These ani...
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
Jonathan Safran Foer wrote “Eating Animals” for his son; although, when he started writing it was not meant to be a book (Foer). More specifically to decide whether he would raise his son as a vegetarian or meat eater and to decide what stories to tell his son (Foer). The book was meant to answer his question of what meat is and how we get it s well as many other questions. Since the book is a quest for knowledge about the meat we eat, the audience for this book is anyone that consumes food. This is book is filled with research that allows the audience to question if we wish to continue to eat meat or not and provide answers as to why. Throughout the book Foer uses healthy doses of logos and pathos to effectively cause his readers to question if they will eat meat at their next meal and meals that follow. Foer ends his book with a call to action that states “Consistency is not required, but engagement with the problem is.” when dealing with the problem of factory farming (Foer).
Animal abuse is bad for the animals and there are strict consequence. You can be fined for a lot of money and in some states you can even be arrested for more than 1 year. Many animals are also mistreated. One place where animals, specifically dogs, are mistreated are puppy mills. Puppy mills are where dogs are housed in unsanitary and cramped places. According to ASPCA-Puppy Mills- it says that dogs are kept in cages that have a wire flooring. This causes the dogs paws and legs to bleed. When female dogs can’t reproduce, they are killed because the main point of puppy mills are to sell dogs for money. Many puppies born in puppy mills, are born with genetic diseases like heart disease. Since these puppy mill breeders are working undercover they are hard to catch. There is no legal way of selling dogs from puppy mills so don’t be tricked into buying one or by the licenses they show. One way you can help is to call your local police department or animal shelter.
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.
Cruelty toward animals, huge economic problems, and major health concerns are just three reasons why factory farming should be banned worldwide. Many people argue that factory farming is the only way to meet growing demands for food in the world today. However, factory farming is just not necessary, especially when it comes down to killing innocent animals in order to feed people. A way to put an end to the factory farming system is by buying our food from smaller, sustainable farms. These businesses still aim to profit from their labor, but that’s not their only objective. (The Issues: Factory Farming, n.d.) They simply will not sacrifice the health of the land or the quality of food simply to make a few extra dollars.
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.
The animals that are raised in factory farms, and the farms are ran just like any other business. According to the article Factory Framing, Misery of Animals, the factory farming industry strives to maximize output while minimizing cost, always at the animal’s expense. “The giant corporations that run most factory farms have found that they can make more money by squeezing as many animals as possible into tiny spaces, even though many of the animals die from disease or infection” (Factory Farming). This is actually quit disgusting that we eat food that walks around in each other’s feces and can attract disease. These animals live a life of abuse, but we sit back and say it’s okay because we will eventually eat them. “Antibiotics are used to make animals grow faster and to keep them alive in the unsanitary conditions. Research shows that factory farms widespread use of antibiotics can lead to antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threatens human health” (Factory Farming). These animals aren’t treated with proper care and we act as if they are machines. Chickens for example, become so big and distorted that their legs can longer support them. Eventually they die because they can longer walk to get food or water. According to Factory Farming, most of these animals have been genetically manipulated to grow larger and to produce more eggs and milk than they naturally
Can you imagine going through the pain that animals in slaughterhouses went through? Most people don’t think of that part of it but the real fact is that billions of animals went through a painful life to be killed for food every year. Most people like to keep the thought in there heads that these animals live on beautiful green farms where they are treated great and then have a very peaceful death, and never feel any or little pain. Well that is not the case, these animals are treated very unfairly. The animals in slaughterhouses are given a massive amount of antibiotics, hormones, and drugs to keep them alive in conditions that are so bad they would otherwise kill them.