fix essay

Puppies, Pigs, and People Essay Assignment

Nicolas J. Menses

Class: T-T 5:45 P.M

March 05, 2020

Puppies, Pigs, and People Essay Assignment

Alastair Norcross’s Dispute that it is Immoral to Consume Factory-Farmed Animal Meat

The story describes a character, Fred, who is a dire chocolate lover but unfortunately is no longer able to get pleasure from it, because of a psychological trauma due to a tragic automobile accident. However, he realizes through a chance discovery that the brain of puppies comprises of cocoa one, the substance that Fred necessitated towards experiencing again chocolate enjoyment. Cocoa one is extracted whenever puppies are subjected underneath brutal distress and anguish (Norcross, 2004). Thus, Fred mutilated, induced distress, and slaughtered puppies to obtain this chemical because his existence “would be unacceptably impoverished without chocolate” (Norcross, 2004). However, his explanations for his actions to the court are not justifiable besides ethically correct. His individual pleasure does not warrant the torment subjected on these puppies to be ethically tolerable. Considering the tale of Fred who is visited by the police one day who come after the neighbors who are angered by the peculiar sounds that radiate from Fred’s cellar, takes us to a different perception. When the police enter Fred’s storm cellar, they proceed to the scene on which the peculiar sounds are heard. The scenario that they encounter at the scene makes them suspicious of the place. The place looks neatly set but there are some things that portray the place as the source of the sounds. Among the things found are 26 little wire confines, each containing a pup, which portray different looks depending on the sounds each one is making. Some of the pups are crying, others are whining, and some others are yelling. The pups are up to the age of half a year and they appear mutilated from their appearance mainly for the need to mark them by cutting off their ears. The pups go in age from infant to around a half year. Huge numbers of them appear indications of mutilation. Pee and defecation can be seen spreading at the lower part of the closures and at the floor of the cellar. Fred clarifies that he saves the pups for twenty a month and a half, and afterward butchers them while holding them tipsy curvy (Norcross, 2004).

Fred demonstrated to the police the process of performing mutilations by cutting off their ears, nose and paws with a hot blade without using any form of sedation. With the exception of the mutilations, the young doggies are never permitted out of the enclosures, which are scarcely sufficiently large to hold them at twenty a month and a half. The police are sickened, and instantly accuse Fred of creature misuse. As subtleties of the case are pitched, general society is offended. Papers are overflowed with letters requesting that Fred be seriously rebuffed. There are calls for increasingly serious punishments for creature misuse. Fred is reviled as an awful cruel person. At last, at his preliminary, Fred clarifies his conduct, and contends that he is innocent and subsequently merits no discipline. He will be, he clarifies, an extraordinary admirer of chocolate. Two or three years prior, he was associated with an auto collision, which brought about some head injury.

Fred was surprised to find out that his rare experience and activity was a favorite of many and was considered a pleasurable by many. A wide research on the activities of Fred revealed that this experience was safe from various issues that affected other types of nourishments, a case that has enabled Fred’s business to run effectively with no disturbances. Edgy for an answer for his concern, Fred visited a famous gustatory nervous system specialist, Dr. T. Bud. Broad tests have already been carried by doctors and other professionals and came up within positive recommendations about the case. Broad tests uncovered that the mishap had unsalvageable harmed the Godiva organ, which secretes cocoa one, the hormone answerable for the experience of chocolate. Fred critically mentioned hormone substitution treatment… Be that as it may, a possibility revelation had adjusted the circumstance. A legal veterinary specialist, playing out a post-mortem on a harshly manhandled doggy, had found high centralizations of cocoa one in the pup's mind. It worked out those doggies, who don't ordinarily create cocoa one, could be animated to do as such by expanded times of extreme pressure and languishing. The examination, which prompted this revelation, while increasing residency for its creators, had not been broadly broadcasted but had been inspired by a paranoid fear of irritating creature government assistance gatherings. Despite the fact that this examination unmistakably gave Fred the expectation of tasting chocolate again, there were no financially accessible wellsprings of little dog determined cocoa one. Absence of interest, joined with dread of terrible exposure, had deflected sedate organizations from getting into the little dog tormenting business the author correlates Fred's activities to “billions of animals endure intense suffering every year for precisely this end. Most of the chicken, veal, beef, and pork consumed in the US comes from intensive confinement facilities, in which the animals live cramped, stress-filled lives and endure painful anaesthetized mutilations” (Norcross, 2004). Therefore, Norcross’ position is that there is no ethically pertinent differentiation involving his behavior with that of the millions of individuals who purchase and devour meat that is factory farmed. However, when considering animal products consumption, it is essential to find the interests of all involved, including the animals, the farmers, and meat-eaters.

Norcross also puts forth an argument from marginal cases. This means that individual animals have a superior ethical position and rational capacities as compared to others and perhaps to the degree that some humans do (Norcross, 2004). For example, puppies may have an elevated ethical standing animal from farms such as chickens, pigs, or cows that we eat. The pragmatic view of this argument of limited cases is that every member of the moral community, including animals, counts equally. Therefore, it is not acceptable to slaughter and consume farm animals that have similar cognitive capabilities as well as rationality degree as humans. Since they are of equal importance, they must be treated equally.

Utilitarian is a moral theory which tries to create the most amounts of happiness, pleasure, and wellbeing, and the least amount of displeasure or suffering for the most members of the moral community. Animals like humans deserve respectful treatment. Many individuals become outraged by factory-farming (Norcross, 2004). However, where is the line drawn for agriculture and choosing animals that should get preferential treatment, particularly when it comes to “suffering”? Do puppies, pigs, chickens, and cows fall into a different moral status than whales, tuna, lobsters, crabs, or insects killed by pesticides?

Moreover, what about all the pesticides used to support vegetarian diets and the effects of “suffering” on sentient animals? Many of these arguments seem to rely on moral or ethical intuition, “…our intuitive awareness of the value, or intuitive knowledge of evaluative facts, forms the foundation of our ethical knowledge" (Norcross, 2004). Is there a reliable food supply? When making a decision or choice, it is essential to make a judgment based on what is known and right based on principles acceptable to that individual.

One alternative for meat-eaters is to consider purchasing and consuming meat and products from pasture-based, organic farms where animals may be treated more humanely before their slaughter (Norcross, 2004). For some, this may decrease animal “suffering” and improve the “happiness” of animals, farmers, and meat-eaters. This type of farming may even make it more “moral”. According to utilitarianism, consuming products from factory-farms is morally impermissible, as it would create little happiness and wellbeing.

Another alternative for meat-eaters is to consider giving up eating factory farmed meat and becoming vegetarians. However, for meat consumers becoming a vegetarian would not have a significant impact. It would not prevent animal “suffering” or create a “happy” diet. If meat consumers stopped purchasing factory-farmed meat, this would not causally impact the animal factory farming business or agribusiness. Therefore, the meat-eater who enjoys consuming factory-farmed products would be less "happy" (Norcross, 2004). Therefore, since eating factory-farmed meat does not make a difference, the person should go on with eating meat besides making it morally permissible.

Torturing puppies has the intent of extracting "cocoamone" while farm animals are subjected to suffering due to agribusiness enterprises. Therefore, correlating both statements and making them appear equivalent is incorrect, mainly when speaking against eating meat (Norcross, 2004). Eating meat can be ethically and morally acceptable. It is justifiable to eat meat when considering moral and ethical parameters. The difference in meat consumption and Fred's actions is that there are no issues with eating meat, but there are issues with Fred not observing socially acceptable behavior. The point of Fred torturing the puppies represents a contrary, social practice. It is not an inherent or innate problem with torturing or killing animals.

Essential elements in everyone's life are behavioral morals and moral values. Moral behavior stems from an "individual's knowledge of social and cultural norms and the capacity to perform good works through selfless actions” (Norcross, 2004). Moral values are knowing what is right and wrong and helps shape a person’s character and make the right decisions for themselves. Consumers should be able to eat according to their principles and reasoned values. Consumers have an ethic, justify his or her position, acknowledge it, and live by it. This enables the meat-eaters and the vegetarians to eat whatever they want with a clear conscience.

References