Norcross derives his argument that Fred’s torturing of puppies is similar to consumers purchasing meat from grocery stories on the fact that we torture livestock, solely to fulfill our lust for meat. Fred tortures puppies not because he is a vile sadist, but to fulfill his desire to once again taste chocolate. This is similar to consumers buying meat because consumers don’t have an infatuation with torturing animals only with consuming meat. What Fred does to puppies is morally wrong due to multiple reasons, the first considering that Fred is using the puppies as a means for his end. Puppies have the same rationality of a newly born, in that they are helpless and need constant attention. If you replaced the puppies with a newly born Fred would be unable to bring himself to harm a newly born to fulfill his hedonistic desire.…show more content… The pain experienced by these animals is far greater than any sick household pet. The cost of medication or any treatment is far more expensive, so the only logical alternative is to slaughter the animal or let it rot. These companies always choose the latter, profits reigns supreme. The comparison between Fred torturing animals and consumers buying meat is indistinguishable. Consumers are well aware that meat is unnecessary for one’s diet and that animals are suffering to satisfy their appetite. Therefore it is logical to say that Fred’s immoral act of torturing puppies is equivalent to a consumer purchasing meat from a factory
