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
Purchase answer to see full attachment
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...