animals

Norcross’s Argument Fred’s action are very wrong. Fred’s action is analogous to purchasing factory farmed meat. Purchasing factory farmed meat is very wrong.

While I agree that Fred’s behavior is abominable, mine is crucially different. If Fred did not consume his chocolate, he would not raise and torture puppies. Therefore Fred could prevent the suffering of the puppies. However, if I did not buy and consume factory-raised meat, no animals would be spared lives of misery. Agribusiness is much too large to respond to the behavior of one consumer. Therefore I cannot prevent the suffering of any animals… Since the animals will suffer no matter what I do, I may as well enjoy the taste of their flesh. Alastair Norcross, “Puppies, Pigs and People”

Perhaps there is a further difference between the treatment of Fred’s puppies and the treatment of animals on factory farms. The suffering of the puppies is a necessary means to the production of gustatory pleasure, whereas the suffering of animals on factory farms is simply a by-product of the conditions dictated by economic considerations… Fred acts impermissibly, according to this line of argument, because he intends the suffering of the puppies as a means to his pleasure. Most meat eaters, on the other hand, even if aware of the suffering of the animals do not intend the suffering.

Norcross’s Argument Fred’s action are very wrong. Fred’s action is analogous to purchasing factory farmed meat. Purchasing factory farmed meat is very wrong.