need help

User Generated

nnnnooo1

Writing

Description


Will you be interested in this? I've attached the prompt and requirements in this quote.


Rough Draft Due Date (optional): Midnight on Friday, December 1st (on D2l’s Dropbox)

Final Paper Due Date: Midnight on Tuesday, December 12th (On D2l’s Dropbox)

Guidelines: These papers must be at least 5 pages in length (feel free to go over if you want), 12-point font, double-spaced. You must cite your sources using either APA or Chicago style. I don’t care which, just be consistent and follow the rules. You can find these citation styles online.Will you be interested in this? I've attached the prompt and requirements in this quote

Please get back to me as soon as possible.Thank you

please check attahment Which question you think you could write an excellent paper on?

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Final Essay Prompts: Rough Draft Due Date (optional): Midnight on Friday, December 1st (on D2l’s Dropbox) Final Paper Due Date: Midnight on Tuesday, December 19th (On D2l’s Dropbox) Guidelines: These papers must be at least 5 pages in length (feel free to go over if you want), 12-point font, double-spaced. You must cite your sources using either APA or Chicago style. I don’t care which, just be consistent and follow the rules. You can find these citation styles online. I want you to critically assess one of the applied ethics topics we have talked about this year. The prompts I am supplying are more general than the midterm prompts. Feel free to take these in any direction you see fit (or to develop your midterm essays into a longer final essay). I am asking you to critically assess both sides of the argument for each prompt and then tell me which side you agree with, and why. I also would really like it if people could develop their own arguments for their position. So you might agree that capital punishment should be abolished because of Nathanson’s arbitrariness argument, but you might think it is even more problematic that innocents could be killed. It would then be good to develop the innocence argument (in addition to agreeing with Nathanson and disagreeing with with Van der Haag) to bolster your conclusion. Or you might think that there are good reasons for the permissibility of abortion that Thomson does not talk about. I want to hear about these as well. So the point is to critically engage with the arguments that I presented in class on both sides of the debate. But you should also try to develop your own reasons that may not have been discussed in the articles. You should begin your paper with a short introduction of the topic and a thesis statement. How you structure the rest of your paper is up to you. Just remember to use separate paragraphs for separate ideas. I expect you to have an extremely good handle on the articles that go along with each of these topics and to cite them when appropriate (i.e. whenever you are closely summarizing their content or when quoting them directly). *If you turn in the rough draft, I can guarantee comments back on your paper by Friday, December 8th. If you have a rough draft that you want me to look at after the optional rough draft due date (Dec 1st), then you need to physically come into office hours. If you can’t come into office hours, e-mail me and we will figure something else out. Prompts: (Again, you can write on something else not included here, but you must run it by me first). 1. Abortion: Discuss Thomson and Marquis arguments on abortion. If you think abortion is permissible, explain why you think Thomson is correct and Marquis is wrong. If you think abortion is impermissible, explain why Marquis is correct and Thomson is wrong. If you think abortion is permissible/impermissible for some other reason not discussed by Thomson/Marquis, then develop your own argument for why this is the case. 2. Captial Punishment: Explain both Nathanson and Van Der Haag’s arguments on capital punishment in detail. If you agree with Nathanson (that capital punishment should be abolished) explain why he is correct while Van Der Haag is wrong. If you agree with Van Der Haag, explain why he is correct while Nathanson is wrong. If you think capital punishment is moral/immoral for some other reason not discussed by Nathanson/Van der Haag then develop your own argument for why it should be abolished/continued. 3. Animal Ethics: Explain both Norcross’ and Cohen’s arguments about factory farming and animal experimentation. Do you think such practices are moral? If so, explain why Norcross is wrong and why Cohen is right. If not, explain why Norcross is correct and Cohen is wrong. If you have some other reason for why eating meat/animal experimentation is permissible or impermissible than develop an argument for why this is the case. 4. Global Justice: Explain both Singer’s and Arthur’s arguments on world poverty. Do you think we are morally obligated to help the poor in distant countries? If so, explain why Singer is correct while Arthur is wrong. If not, explain why Singer is wrong and Arthur is correct. If you have some other reason for why individuals (or governments) are morally obligated (or not morally obligated) to give aid to distant strangers, then develop your own argument for why this is the case. 5. Sex and Prostitution: Explain Both Ericsson’s and Pateman’s arguments on prostitution. If you agree with Ericsson, explain why he is correct while Pateman is wrong. If you agree with Pateman, explain why she is correct and Ericsson is wrong. If you have some other reason for why prostitution is moral or immoral then develop your own argument for why this is the case. 6. Affirmative Action: Explain both Himma’s and Newton’s arguments on Affirmative Action. If you agree with Himma, explain why Himma is correct and Newton is wrong. If you agree with Newton, explain why Newton is correct and Himma is wrong. If you have some other reasons for thinking that Affirmative action policies are justified (or not justified) then develop your own argument for why this is the case.
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Animal Ethics - Outline
Thesis statement: Norcross’ and Cohen’s arguments about factory farming and animal
experimentation
1. Norcross’ and Cohen’s arguments about factory farming and animal
experimentation
2. Why Norcross is wrong and why Cohen is right


Running head: ANIMAL ETHICS

1

Animal Ethics
Name
Institution

ANIMAL ETHICS

2
Animal Ethics

In his article “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases,” Alastair
Norcross examines the effects of factory-farmed meats and vouches for vegetarianism. He
employs a hypothetical case of Fred who anguishes puppies in his basement to extract
cocoamone, a hormone responsible for the experience of chocolate and the only way to
extract cocoamone is to torture and slaughter puppies. The story goes that Fred was always an
extreme lover of chocolate, but lost his capability to taste any cocoa product after a brain
injury (Norcross, 2004). In some way, he learned that the only way to taste his much-loved
chocolate again was by adding cocoamone. He enjoyed the taste of chocolate so much that he
resolved to initiate a small cocoamone production facility in his basement. Fred confined the
puppies in small wire cages covered in feces and urine while chopping off their paws and
noses with a hot knife all without any anesthesia so that they can produce cocoamine. In his
defense, Fred regrets the death of the puppies, as he is purely considering the gustatory
pleasures of man, particularly the joys of chocolate, over those of the animals. Norcross
makes a comparison of this cruel manner of treating the puppies to factory farming. He thinks
that there are no morally relevant differences between the actions of Fred and those who buy
and eat factory-farmed meat. Fred claims that he would stop torturing puppies if only
chocolate did not taste that good. The claim appears ridiculous, but several individuals say
the same things regarding meat: “Yes, it may be wrong, but meat tastes so good!” or “If God
did not want us to have meat, then he would not have made it so tasty!” consumers of factory
farming are deficient of agency in their actions. Fred is accountable for the actions of killing
and torturing the puppies. Nevertheless, when one consumes factory-farmed meats, they are
merely consuming it. They do not act as an agent in inhumanly killing and torturing the
animals. Norcross reacts to this by assuming that Fred employs someone to torture the
puppies for him. If Fred is no longer torturing the puppies, he must not be responsible for

ANIMAL ETHICS

3

their deaths. Nonetheless, this supposition is not complete and does not take away from the
point that puppies are being killed for gustatory pleasure. It is similar to the consumers of
factory-farmed meats, although the consumer is not killing the animal themselves they are
eating the animals for gustatory pleasure which in itself is wrong in line with Norcross. Fred
is conscious of what he is doing to the puppies, but most customers of factory-farmed meats
are unaware of the methods by which the animals are butchered. Norcross disagrees with this
belief since the idea of not investigating how animals are butchered is merely being
“blissfully uninformed.” Furthermore, the exposure surrounding factory-farming is growing
and promulgating awareness rapidly. Finally, as soon as reading the paper authored by
Norcross, the customer is no longer oblivious to the factory-farming process. The other
objection of Norcross is that if a customer ceases to eat factory-farming meat, and even
switches to vegetarianism, his or her actions will not put an end to the issue nor will they
make a considerable change. Individuals will always consume meat, and the meat industry is
too large to discontinue. On the other hand, Norcross is not persuaded and still considers that
eating factory-farmed meat is not warranted. He supposes that animal welfare groups are
getting more attention and vegetarianism is increasing as well, so subscribing to the
movement towards ethical farming methods and vegetarianism will aid in spreading the
message and accelerate the process (Norcross, 2004). Also, the opposition indicates that even
if several users change to vegetarianism the odds of the industry of factory-farming
decelerating or even failing is highly not likely. Norcross reacts by presenting an illustration
of a plane flying without oxygen masks, emergency exits, or life jackets. Although the odds
of the modern planes crashing are not probable, the majority of individuals would consider it
a crime to fly an aircraft without suitable emergency equipment.
There are several styles to tackle the case, including traditional, biblical, and amoral
reasons or from a vegetarian perspective. Pain is pain regardless of the sex, race, or species of

ANIMAL ETHICS

4

the free-range victim slaughter or humane slaughter, the butchering of animals is not helping
the welfare of animals. It is a move in the correct direction but does not guarantee the
minimal rights of animals. Exploitation without unwarranted suffering is still exploitation.
Enslavement and comfortable death is not a part of these rights. The solution is not to become
vegetarian. Humans are omnivorous, and they do have the selection of whether they consume
meat or not. Humans advanced to be omnivores; their digestive system is established to
digest meat proteins and necessitates them to be healthy. The notion that biology should be
overlooked for a futile moral position is working against the habitat we were located to
survive. To take one of the most regularly proposed characteristics, several humans are not
capable of participating in moral reflection. People can assert not to be guilty, but at one go,
at fault. It is easy for people to have that perspective when they are at the top of the food
chain.
Cohen claims that even if we do have responsibilities to animals, for instance, not to
be cruel to them, we have duties to animals centered on their rights for such treatment.
Consistent with Cohen, the biomedical use of animals does not infringe on their rights,
because as their very nature, animals cannot have rights. Cohen describes a right by “a
potential claim, or valid claim, that may be made by the moral agent, under principles that
govern both the claimant and the target of the claim” (Cohen, 1986 ). His view on the rights
of animals is that they do not have any. Nevertheless, humans should not be able to do
whatever they want to animals except if it is required. With his description, he also expounds
on the difference between the interests and rights of animals. He asserts that rights exceed
interests. Cohen denies the utilitarian claim that much of the biomedical use of animals is an
unwarranted relegation of the most compelling interests of animals to relatively human
interests. He considers a proper utilitarian examination of animal experimentation counsels
the growing use of animals in biomedical research, instead of its elimination or reduction.

ANIMAL ETHICS

5

Since there is a stronger rationalization for animal use in biomedical research than for any
other use of animals such as for clothing or food, Co...


Anonymous
Just what I needed…Fantastic!

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags