Analysis Of Norcross's Essay 'Puppies'

In Norcross's essay ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: eating meat and marginal cases’ he claims that we should not eat farm factory meat since it is not worth our own gustatory pleasure. In this essay I will argue that Norcross's is correct in stating that we are morally obligated to give up eating farm factory meat, and the idea of the causal impotence objection does not succeed. Norcross introduces his idea with the story of Fred. Fred is a man who has been put on trial for animal abuse of twenty-six puppies. The police found in his basement animal cages that gave the puppies no room to move, and it was where Fred stored them while he brutally murdered them It was a long, drawn out process and the puppies were given no anesthesia and their limbs …show more content…
If one person chooses to no longer support the farm factory industry and gives up meat, it will not make a difference or impact the companies at all. But, lets says that it takes 10,000 people converting to vegetarianism to reach the threshold that will cause a reduction in poultry production. There is a chance that the lives of 250,00 chickens could be saved. If there is 9,999 people then you joining the cause does make a substantial difference. If you choose not to be the 10,000 person and wait on someone else to be it you are morally wrong. Norcross says being a bystander and not acting draws out the time and suffering of the animals. Also the quicker you act the more you can influence others to do the same. Your behavior and the timing of it does matter in the long run. One person making a stand does make a difference, because if we all believe our actions have no power then there would be no change in the world. The chicken scenario can be related back to the chocolate dessert dilemma. A morally good person would say it is not morally permissible to eat the dessert knowing it comes from the torturing of puppies. So one cannot make the same excuse for the chickens when they know how the poultry industry