Meat Eating Meat Analysis

Improved Essays
Market Meat: Ignorance and Morality

Student ID: 0258094

In this squib I will criticize Norcross’ response to objection 1 to Norcross’ main argument from the essay “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” by Alastair Norcross. In objection 1 to Norcross’s main argument it is argued that Fred tortures the puppies himself, but meat eaters do not torture the farm animals. Norcross’ response is that, Fred’s hiring someone else to torture the puppies for him would be just as wrong. Norcross believes there is not a separation between one who tortures the animals themselves to obtain meat or in this case the fictional chemical “cocoamone” (Norcross, pg. 230). Or one who pays another to do the torturing for them. Norcross’ Argument
…show more content…
Maximizing happiness is not morally wrong.
4. Therefore, purchasing meat from the supermarket and by proxy paying for the torture of farm raised animals is not wrong.

My argument is in the form of Modus Tollens and is thus a valid argument. Meaning that it’s logically impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. The support for my argument is as follows:

Premise 1: This is true because the act of providing for your family involves the purchase of foods from various sources.
Premise 2: Providing for your family is an act of maximizing happiness and is therefore supported by Act-Utilitarianism which states one can maximize happiness while taking into consideration of those involved.
Premise 3: According to Act-Utilitarianism maximizing happiness is not morally wrong.
Premise 4: If it is part of maximizing happiness for one to purchase food from the supermarket and avoiding the torturous practices of farm or factory raised meats as opposed to doing the torturing oneself then it is not morally wrong.

The ethical theory of Act-Utilitarianism says that what makes an action right is that it maximizes happiness, those involved considered. This ethical theory supports my argument because the process of purchasing food, in this case farm raised meat, is a way of maximizing happiness for oneself and for those involved including family

Related Documents

  • Great Essays

    On Eating Animals Analysis

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages

    While considering the ethical aspects of eating meat, I personally find myself imagining the human as part of a natural circle of life where animals kill and eat each other to survive. Genuine disgust at the cruelty has been evident in the response of donations to animal welfare groups. So it's not to say that farm animals get no sympathy in the United States, but only that Americans somehow don't recognize that cruelty is the norm, not the exception, and is incorporated into the very idea of factory farms; what makes meat cheap is the assembly line processing. Treating animals humanely begins with natural diets, open spaces for living, eliminating the use of hormones that manipulate body weight and mutilations, together with more in depth training for caretakers and inspectors, maybe surveillance cameras, and professionals who enforce laws and prosecute violators, and so on all of which would make meat more expensive. Nothing strikes me as more absurd than calling oneself an animal lover while consuming industrialized meat, though people will surely continue to lie to themselves and even offer various excuses to defend their habit.…

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Jordan Curnutt claims that utilitarian based arguments to defend vegetarianism are inadequate. He presents his own argument, NEW, for vegetarianism and exposes flaws in various attempts to override the prima facie duty of not harming animals. Utilitarian arguments can both favor and oppose vegetarianism. Several philosophers have insisted that utilitarian based arguments require that people eat meat because it improves the economy, helps people who work in the meat industry, and because people enjoy eating meat. Opposing this view, other utilitarian arguments say that vegetarianism is required because killing animals is a violation of their rights and it uses animals as a means to our own ends.…

    • 796 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Similarly, Paxson (2013) argued that eating well embraces both ‘being well in health and being good morally’ (Paxson, 2013). The understanding of ‘good’ way to eat will be the basic guide of the practices towards food and how to eat better (Davies, 2014). As an arising issue, food waste is often failed to be taken into deeper consideration. Bloom (2011) considered food waste as a callous conduct of moral. Accordingly, food waste represents the praxis contrasting to the concept of eating well.…

    • 1059 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    ’There is nothing wrong with rearing and killing animals for consumption ’. Eating animals involves many aspects that may not be morally right. Philosophers may take into account violated rights, interests, human interests vs animal interests, rights argument and virtue ethics. Eating animals poses mainly two problems- is it wrong in principle to raise and kill animals so that human beings can eat meat and fish or Does it stop being wrong if the process involved are carried out humanely? These are two important questions philosophers debate on.…

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Eating meat ties in with vegetarian and vegan diets, in the sense that both have to follow guidelines to create an ethical approach to eating any grown foods. The consumption of food is ethical when both meat eaters and non-meat eaters understand the organisms they affect with their food choices. Finally, an understanding of where and how food is grown can create awareness and gratitude, which can cause the U.S population to reflect on its own excessive amount of meat consumption compared to other countries. In sum, the option of eating meat shouldn’t be completely…

    • 1214 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Bittman confirms his argument by using statements from other creditable sources Bittman’s argument sends a good and convincing message because it lets people know that the concept “junk food is easier and cheaper” is not always the case. With obesity on a rise its important that people know there is healthier options for less money.…

    • 1525 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In my view, pigs are on this earth to be bacon and sausage. Although this is a harsh view, humans have to fend for themselves and receive protein for nutrition. Although I believe that it is okay to eat animals, I do not believe that cruelty is correct. Treating animals in an inhumane way should not be allowed. Animals do have a right to not be tortured for no reason at all.…

    • 892 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Trader Joe’s also guarantee good quality products to the customers, they have someone tried their products before they stock it in the store (“Product Information”). It definitely feels safer to buy a Trader Joe’s product, because Trader Joe’s let you return the item if you don’t like it. And the staff will not even ask any question about the return. That is something other conventional supermarkets cannot provide. Besides the quality, Trader Joe’s keep the price of their product lower than other markets.…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The book Eating Animals is a journalistic book written by Jonathan Safran Foer. In the book Foer talks about good and bad consequences of eating animals in America. He talks about animal welfare in family vs. factory farms, animal diseases, slaughter and much more. Foer does not a directly attempt to convince the reader to become vegan, however his main idea does focus on many problems of the meat industry being solved by people becoming vegan. But is this solution realistic?…

    • 864 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Shapin’s argument thoroughly shows how the use of such pesticides allows us to be retrospectively “safer.” Since we know the supposed “risk factor” or what is more likely to be in our food, rather than the bacteria from a tractor or a horse and plow, I can agree that it would be safer to go by the use of such pesticides. Shapin’s work depicts the bias of corporate America and how our foods are not all they are made out to be. Therefore, I would like to know how corporations can be better regulated in order to stop such forms of false advertising. In addition, I agree with Shapin’s idea that “how we want our food produced and delivered are decisions about what counts as social virtue.” (435) I believe that consumers and producers should communicate with one another more, which would essentially benefit both of them, as well as society itself. If consumers knew what producers were manufacturing, consumers would be more likely to purchase it, which would help producers economically.…

    • 834 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays