Essay-2
CHALLENGE FROM MARGINAL CASES
Having gone through the ‘Challenge from Marginal Cases: in the Article “Puppies, Pigs and People”, it seems the author Alastair Norcross is of the view that any mutilation or torture to non-human animals is morally impermissible irrespective of the actions of Fred’s behavior and torture of the animals or slaughtering or mutilation of farmed animals. He argues that there is no difference as the animal is mutilated in either case. In one case Fred tortures his puppies directly to obtain cocoamone for his pleasure whereas in other case farmed animals are slaughtered to cater the need of the people.
From the above I feel, Fred is a rare consumer of cocoamone and the way he treats or torture puppies himself in an unorganized way and keep animal …show more content…
But not in favour of advocating the use for food. Warren suggests that “there are powerful practical and emotional reasons for protecting non-rational human beings, reasons which are absent in the case of most non-human animals”. It is apparent from the above that even though the person can be inferior to the normal human being, he still will have more virtues than non-human animals. Steinbock has also stated that use of a chimpanzee in an experiment instead of a human being possessing less capacity for reasoning is doubtful rather they need care being from our own species and having feeling and sentiments in our moral thinking.
However, it is evident from the justification given on various situations to claim higher moral status of human on some description of rationality as the morally relevant difference between humans and animals will fail. In the absence of desired answer to the argument on marginal cases, it will not be able to prove that such difference is morally relevant to the status of animals as moral patients as against of moral
CHALLENGE FROM MARGINAL CASES
Having gone through the ‘Challenge from Marginal Cases: in the Article “Puppies, Pigs and People”, it seems the author Alastair Norcross is of the view that any mutilation or torture to non-human animals is morally impermissible irrespective of the actions of Fred’s behavior and torture of the animals or slaughtering or mutilation of farmed animals. He argues that there is no difference as the animal is mutilated in either case. In one case Fred tortures his puppies directly to obtain cocoamone for his pleasure whereas in other case farmed animals are slaughtered to cater the need of the people.
From the above I feel, Fred is a rare consumer of cocoamone and the way he treats or torture puppies himself in an unorganized way and keep animal …show more content…
But not in favour of advocating the use for food. Warren suggests that “there are powerful practical and emotional reasons for protecting non-rational human beings, reasons which are absent in the case of most non-human animals”. It is apparent from the above that even though the person can be inferior to the normal human being, he still will have more virtues than non-human animals. Steinbock has also stated that use of a chimpanzee in an experiment instead of a human being possessing less capacity for reasoning is doubtful rather they need care being from our own species and having feeling and sentiments in our moral thinking.
However, it is evident from the justification given on various situations to claim higher moral status of human on some description of rationality as the morally relevant difference between humans and animals will fail. In the absence of desired answer to the argument on marginal cases, it will not be able to prove that such difference is morally relevant to the status of animals as moral patients as against of moral