Factory Farming PDF

Preview

Summary

PHI 2600 Section U01
Prof. Kenneth Henley
...

Description

PHI 2600 Section U01 Alastair Norcross vs. Factory Farming Society would most often believe that those who consume the meat of animals raised in factory farms do not have any responsibility for the harm perpetrated on the animals. Alastair Norcross sees the current process of factory farming as immoral; He dismisses this view, that meat eaters are not guilty of influencing any harm to the animals, as inadequate. Instead, he believes that the satisfaction meat-eaters get from eating meat is far more outweighed by the pain endured by animals when killed. Through the fictional story of Fred, Norcross successfully establishes that factory farming is immoral. I believe that he accomplishes this by confronting two opposing arguments, and then further by proving the qualification of animals as moral patients. Norcross makes a very convincing philosophical point. He tells a fictional story of a guy named Fred. Fred receives a visit by the police, upon which they discover that he keeps twentysix small puppies in his basement. What Fred does to these puppies is outrageously terrifying. While holding them upside-down, he performs mutilations on them such as cutting off their noses and paws, amongst the unsanitary conditions of the basement. The police charge him with animal abuse, and public outrage follows shortly after. In court, Fred argues that he is blameless

and deserves no punishment, simply because of his love for chocolate. He explains that he had suffered head trauma from an automobile accident years ago, and his injuries ruined his Godiva gland. The Godiva gland is responsible for secreting cocoamone, the hormone for tasting chocolate. With that said, Fred could no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate. He then discovered that puppies could secrete amounts of cocoamone, and in more quantities when enduring severe trauma and suffering. Fred saw this as an opportunity for him to enjoy the taste of chocolate again, and he believes that his behavior is blameless and he deserves no punishment. After telling the story, Norcross compares the conditions of Fred and his basement to factory farming. No one would ever consider torturing puppies; however, billions of animals such as chickens, cows, and pigs endure the same suffering every day. Norcross argues that the same way we were ready to chastise Fred, why should we not correspondingly chastise the millions of meat-eaters? He asks: Morally, are there any differences between the actions of Fred and those who devour in factory-raised meat? He implies that the answer is no. Norcross considers differences in reply to his charge that there are no morally significant differences between Fred’s actions and those who consume factory-raised meat. One difference proclaims that Fred actually tortures the puppies himself, while meat-eaters consume the meat from animals that have been tortured by others. He shuts this down with stating that because we

are all aware of the suffering, we are equally at fault, and with the large presence of animal rights groups and campaigns, there should be absolutely no excuse of ignorance. Another difference one might consider is that Fred could prevent the suffering done onto the puppies himself, however one could not spare all the lives of animals if they decided to not consume meat. Norcross responds to this similarly to the first difference, by stating that if you are a morally decent person, aware of the suffering involved in the cocoamone process, you would never consume chocolate. He says that this is equally equivalent to the suggestion that a morally decent person, who is aware of the suffering involved in factory farming, would never purchase and consume their meat. But this is not the case. It is agreed that meat-eaters do not intend to harm animals, but they can only see animal harm as a result of contemporary farming practices. Correspondingly, individual meat-eaters are not off the moral hook because their purchases are so insignificant that they could not possibly affect the practices on factory farms, although they believe that this is so. With that said, one might also say that he factory farming business is too large to respond to the behavior of one individual, so you might as well enjoy eating meat since the animals would suffer no matter what you do. Yes, the industry would not be able to respond to the behavior of the individual, but the industry would be obligated to respond to the behavior of

large numbers. An individual giving up factory-raised meat may only prevent a small amount of suffering, so success in this case comes in numbers. An individual’s behavior in becoming vegetarian can influence other individuals, and so on. He also argues that we must treat animals and so called “marginal” human beings as equals, since humans have mental lives that are no more developed than those of animals that are killed and eaten for food. Norcross lastly introduces a discussion about the difference between a moral agent and a moral patient. A moral agent, as stated, is someone who can respond to moral reasons and control their behavior by means of such reasons. And a moral patient is a being to whom we owe duties, even if that being lacks rights or lacks the cognitive barriers needed to be a moral agent. He argues that animals are considered moral patients, for the reason that they are incapable moral reasoning, and cannot be contingent on moral obligations, such as praising or blaming. Alastair Norcross at last concludes that it is accurate that Fred’s behavior is morally prohibited, and also that because the behavior of those who are aware of factory farming practices is morally not perceptible, their behavior is morally prohibited likewise. Through the fictional story of Fred, I believe that Norcross successfully establishes that factory farming is immoral. He accomplishes this by considering two differencing views to his

charge that there are no morally significant differences between Fred’s actions and those who consume factory-raised meat. The first difference one might suggest is that Fred actually tortures the puppies himself, while meat-eaters consume the meat from animals that have been tortured by others. The second difference considered is that Fred could prevent the suffering done onto the puppies himself, however one could not spare all the lives of animals if they decided to not consume meat. In closing, Norcross further proves his point by proving animals to be moral patients, for the reason that they are incapable moral reasoning, and cannot be contingent on moral obligations....