Phil Final Exam
Norcross believes current practices of factory-farming are deeply immoral and rejects the idea meat eaters are exempt from blame. Norcross believes all meat eaters who are aware of the cruelty within factory farms are fully blame-worthy and their human gustatory pleasure does not justify inflicting extreme suffering of animals. He uses the case of “Fred’s Basement” in order to help prove his point. Fred has been mutilating puppies in his basement in order to be able and experience chocolate in the same way he did before his car accident. Although the courts have labeled him as a vile sadist, Fred disagrees. He explains he does not receive pleasure from torturing the puppies and only does this for the cocoamone they produce. His human pleasure is at stake and this is how he justifies his actions. Norcross compares this to meat eaters because of the cruel living conditions of factory-farmed animals, all for the human pleasure of eating meat. He argues if we condemn Fred for his gustatory pleasure shouldn’t we condemn the millions of people who condemn factory-raised meats? I believe the best objection to this argument would be the claim if one individual became a vegetarian and gave up the gustatory pleasure of meat, it would not have the power to impact the agribusiness. Therefore, if I can’t prevent the suffering of animals. I will agree human enjoyment doesn’t justify suffering but since the animals will suffer no matter what I might as well enjoy them. Norcross disagrees with this objection. 1. A morally decent person who is aware of the details of factory-farming can’t purchase and consume factory raised meat (case of Alabama cocoamone chocolate mousse). If attempted excuse of casual impotence is compelling in latter, it should be compelling in Alabama case, which it is not. He argues to deny the claim of casual impotence and believes the actions of any particular meat consumer do make a difference. 2. For instance, in the case of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document