Superior Essay Writers | Puppies, Pigs, and People

Puppies, Pigs, and People

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.
Step One
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 paragraphs minimum, 20 points.)
Step Two
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:

What Fred is doing when he tortures puppies for his gustatory pleasure is
wrong.
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.

Sample Solution

Alastair Norcross argues that it is immoral for consumers to eat the meat of factory-farmed animals because of the inhumane conditions and extreme suffering they experience. Factory farms are typically overcrowded, providing animals with little space to move around or interact with others. In addition, these animals experience a wide range of physical and mental abuses such as debeaking, tail docking, and castration without anesthetic. Furthermore, they are fed growth hormones which disrupt their natural development and can cause serious health problems like cancer. All of this suffering is inflicted solely for economic gain and therefore cannot be justified by any moral argument. As a result, Norcross believes that it is wrong for people to consume the products of factory farming when much more humane alternatives exist.

First, it is never just to intentionally kill innocent people in wars, supported by Vittola’s first proposition. This is widely accepted as ‘all people have a right not to be killed’ and if a soldier does, they have violated that right and lost their right. This is further supported by “non-combatant immunity” (Frowe (2011), Page 151), which leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: ‘care must be taken where evil doesn’t outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).’ This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the>

GET ANSWER