Alastair Norcross argues that there is no moral difference between the torturing of puppies case and the factory farming. Here is the scenario in which Norcross bases his argument on. Fred is a great lover of chocolate; however he suffered a major car accident which resulted in brain trauma. After this car accident Fred could no longer taste his beloved chocolate. “Extensive tests revealed that the accident had irreparably damaged the godiva gland, which secretes cocoamone, the hormone responsible for the experience of chocolate. Fred urgently requested hormone replacement therapy. Dr. Bud informed him that, until recently, there had been no known source of cocoamone, other than the human godiva gland, and that it was impossible to collect…show more content… Most of the chicken, veal, beef, and pork consumed in the US come from animals put in the exact same living conditions in which Fred used to torture the puppies before executing them all for the pleasure of someone eating them. The vast majority of people would suffer no ill health from the elimination of meats from their diets but yet we do not see ourselves as being these cruel people like how Fred is portrayed. Norcross says, “If we are prepared to condemn Fred for torturing puppies merely to enhance his gustatory experiences, shouldn’t we similarly condemn those who purchase and consume factory-raised meat, in full, or even partial, awareness of the suffering endured by the animals?” So in conclusion, Norcross argument looks like this, “P1: If it’s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, it’s wrong to support factory farming. P2: It is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure. C: Therefore it’s wrong to support factory farming.” This sounds like a pretty solid modus ponens without much wiggle room for misinterpretation. I do agree there is no moral difference between torturing puppies and factory farming; however I believe that they are morally indifferent rather than morally right or…show more content… The basic jest of the argument that Norcross presents is that animal cruelty is morally wrong. Norcross uses this idea to build his whole argument. I will show why the second premise is not true and also show that morality is indifferent to this situation. First, we need to set a proper definition of morality to show why it is indifferent to the problem. “Morality is principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2015) This can also be restated to say that morality is the ability to identify actions as right or wrong. Morality can also be indifferent; ask yourself a simple question, do your socks match? The answer does not matter to morality because it is not asking a moral question therefore because it does not ask a moral question morality is indifferent. Morality only applies to actions from one moral agent to another, not a moral agent to non-moral one. “A Moral agent is a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.” (FreeDictionary.com, 2015) So as an extension of moral agent, the agent has to possess a capacity for rational and capacity for self-awareness. For example a rock cannot be a moral agent because it cannot possibly know right from wrong but a guy in a coma can be a moral agent because he has the capacity to do so. The same can be said about a computer and animals, they are not moral agents.
