TaskIn this paper you will be summarizing and explaining Alastair Norcross’s argument that it is immoral for consumers eat the meat of factory-farmed animals.For your paper:1. First, begin by...

1 answer below »

Task

In this paper you will be summarizing and explaining Alastair Norcross’s argument that it is immoral for consumers eat the meat of factory-farmed animals.

For your paper:

1. First, begin by describing the puppy torture story and its purpose in Alastair Norcross’s paper. What is Fred doing and why? How is Fred supposedly analogous to your average American meat eater?

2. At the end of section 1, Norcross says “No decent person would even contemplate torturing puppies merely to enhance a gustatory experience... If we are prepared to condemn Fred for torturing puppies merely to enhance his gustatory experiences, shouldn’t we similarly condemn the millions who purchase and consume factory-raised meat? Are there any morally significant differences between Fred’s behavior and their behavior?”

This can be paraphrased as the following premises:

1. What Fred is doing when he tortures puppies for his gustatory pleasure is wrong. 2. If what Fred is doing when he tortures puppies for his gustatory pleasure is wrong,

then either what the average American meat eater does when they buy factory farmed meat is wrong or there is some morally significant difference between Fred’s behavior and theirs.

At the end of section 2, Norcross says “I have been unable to discover any morally relevant differences between the behavior of Fred, the puppy torturer, and the behavior of the millions of people who purchase and consume factory-raised meat, at least those who do so in the knowledge that the animals live lives of suffering and deprivation. If morality demands that we not torture puppies merely to enhance our own eating pleasure, morality also demands that we not support factory farming by purchasing factory-raised meat.”

This can be paraphrased as the following premises:





3. Either what the average American meat eater does when they buy factory farmed meat is wrong or there is some morally significant difference between Fred’s behavior and theirs.

4. There are no morally significant differences between Fred’s behavior and the behavior of the average American meat eater when they buy factory farmed meat.

And although he himself leaves his conclusion implicit, we can state it thus:

5. Therefore, what the average American meat eater does when they buy factory

farmed meat is wrong.

Put these premises and the conclusion into your paper as a deductively valid argument, identify the combination of logical forms used in that argument, and explain why the argument is valid. You have permission to copy this argument word for word without citing this prompt.

3. Describe three of the possible differences between us and Fred that Norcross considers in section 2 and explain how he dismisses each possibility as ingenuous or morally irrelevant.

4. Although he himself does not endorse it, in section 4 Norcross introduces the idea he calls “the rationality gambit” that says that humans possess a moral status superior to that of animals because humans possess superior rationality (i.e. humans are much smarter than animals). Norcross quotes Bonnie Steinbock, Mary Anne Warren, and Carl Cohen defending this idea. In your own words, describe the reasons these philosophers give for thinking that our superior rationality also gives us a moral status superior to that of animals.

5. Norcross claims that rationality is not the defining condition of moral worth. Explain why. Be sure to mention marginal cases, the concepts of moral patienthood, moral agenthood, their definitions, and which one applies to animals.

6. Do you agree or disagree with Norcross’s conclusion that the vast majority of meat eaters in America (and elsewhere) are no better than Fred? If you agree with him, will this change what you eat and how you think of meat eaters? How so, and why or why not? If you disagree with his conclusion then there must be something wrong with his premises. Which of his premises would you reject and why?

Your paper should be in double-spaced 12-point font, Times New Roman, Vani, or Calibri. Give it an appropriate title and bold or underline the title. Make sure your name and date is on it at the top, and also put the time your class meets (this will really help me stay organized) but don’t put the name of the professor.
Answered Same DayOct 22, 2022

Answer To: TaskIn this paper you will be summarizing and explaining Alastair Norcross’s argument that it is...

Nasreen answered on Oct 22 2022
46 Votes
Alastair Norcross’s argument that it is immoral for consumers eat the meat of factory-farmed animals.
In Norcross
's mind, Fred's actions are disgusting and immoral. Given that what Fred does is morally reprehensible, he draws the inference that eating meat or buying almost any animal product is similarly bad. This can be formally stated as the following argument by analogy:
· It's wrong for Fred to treat the puppies the way he does. The morality of eating factory produced beef is comparable to Fred's treatment of the pups.
· Buying meat from a factory farm is morally reprehensible for the same reasons. Take into account the following details of Fred's situation:
If Fred gave up cocoamone, the one thing he would lose out on that he couldn't get somewhere else would be "gustatory pleasure" (the pleasure of the taste buds). Chocolate is not required to sustain life or health. Before the cocoamone is harvested, the animals go through excruciating pain.
Objective: The easiest method to counter an argument from analogy is to demonstrate that the two circumstances being compared are not, in fact, morally comparable. In sum,...
SOLUTION.PDF

Answer To This Question Is Available To Download

Related Questions & Answers

More Questions »

Submit New Assignment

Copy and Paste Your Assignment Here