Précis
Norcross argues that buying and consuming factory meat and a case of torturing puppies and killing them is equally and morally wrong. Norcross explains this through a case study of Fred who is under trial for animal abuse. Fred has a car accident that damages his Godiva gland. The Godiva gland produces the cocoamone hormone which enables people to enjoy the taste of chocolate. The doctor tells Fred that studies show that puppies can produce cocoamone if they are sufficiently tortured for an extended period of time and viciously killed. Fred goes ahead to purchase puppies and torture them in his basement and eventually, he slaughters them for cocoamone. Fred restores cocoamone in his body and can continue to enjoy chocolate but he is charged with animal abuse by law.
Meat is highly consumed in the United State and globally. Most of the meat consumers purchase the meat from grocery stores which get meat from factory farms. In order to obtain the meat, the animals are raised in factory farms, and when they have matured enough, they are slaughtered. In Fred’s case, he is aware of his brutality towards the puppies and intentionally does so. Secondly, chocolate is a luxury snack with no nutritional value. In the case of factory farmed meat, the consumer does not know the treatment the animals undergo in the factory and meat has nutritional value. However, the nutritional value of meat can be obtained easily from other non-animal sources such as cereals and achieve the dietary needs that meat satisfies in the body. In fact, vegans are said to be healthier than meat consumers (Norcross, 2004).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In both cases, animals are killed to satisfy needs that are either luxurious or can be comfortably obtained from other sources. However, the idea that the two examples are equally morally wrong is absurd.
Evaluation of the Argument
The conclusion Norcross makes on the two cases is wrong. Fred’s actions of torture and brutal murder of the puppies is intentional whereas America’s meat consumers have no knowledge on the treatment the animals get at the factory. Fred intentionally and knowingly tortures the animals hence the difference in terms of knowledge of the actions they undertake is significant to differentiate the morality between Fred and meat consumers. Secondly, the protection of the puppies from abuse and suffering lay purely on the hands of Fred alone. The torture was unnecessary and an individual choice by Fred. However, for the millions of meat-consuming Americans, the suffering or not of the animals do not lie in their hands and hence they have no control over the treatment the animals undergo. Therefore, given the difference in power over the decision of how to handle and treat the animals, the morality of Fred is in question while that of over the counter meat consumers is not in play.
The purpose of the actions in the two cases is significantly different. Fred tortured and killed the puppies to satisfy a completely non-basic and unhelpful personal comfort. Chocolate has no nutritional value whatsoever and only serves to satisfy his own cravings. If anything, overconsumption can be disastrous to a person's health. On the other hand, meat is particularly valuable to human health providing essential protein nutrients to the human body. Although the nutrients can be easily obtained elsewhere, the underlying intention is significant. Even if the morality for both would be questionable, the depth of morality is very different. Additionally, for the animal to be slaughtered for meat, it has to be healthy which means that it is taken care of at the factory. This brings one to the assumption that animals are not made to suffer before being slaughtered (Norcross, 2004). In conclusion, it is rational for meat consumers to purchase meat over the counter for basic nutritional needs but torturing animals for a craving that is unnecessary and helpful is irrational and hence morality in the two cases should not be compared or equated.
References
Norcross, A. (2004). Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Philosophical Perspectives, 18 (1), 229-245.
