Norcross's Utilitarianism

Norcross argued about the moral wrong of factory-farmed meat and that people who support it (including consumers) are also morally wrong. He emphasized that the pain caused to factory-farmed animals grossly outweighs any good outcomes. To prove his arguments, he uses his deductive argument called Marginal case in regards to the moral status of non-human animals against the rationality gambit; which attempts to establish the superior ethical status of humans over animals because humans are rational and animals are not. He uses deductive argument in aim of providing the connection between the premises (arguments/theories) and the conclusion. In response to the group membership’s arguments, he uses cases such as Heaven’s case to reason in support …show more content…
In response to the second premise in reference to the first, the group argued that human beings are superior by our average intelligence, therefore, it doesn’t matter whether if a person who is moral agent due to their mental disability because they are still part of the average intelligent beings. And of course, Norcross fought back in response to those who dare to challenge his belief. This is where the heaven case came to play. It proposes a fictional instance where a group of bad guys gets send to heaven just because of Gandhi over a group of good women condemn to hell because of a single bad woman (Cruella DeVille) in their group. By using this case, Norcross accomplished to point out the flaw of our moral mentality and emphasize that favoritism based on speciesism is not a good reason to inflict pain on another just because of a few difference/ incapability. In a way, I feel that this can be used in relevance to racism because it is generalization based on a few creatures or people; therefore, favoritism of speciesism equals racism. Overall, both sides proposed great arguments, but under any circumstances, no one in the right mind will go to an extent of murdering a person over an animal. This is due to societal prioritization …show more content…
He further questioned the group if it’s permissible for higher intellect beings such as aliens to do as they desire to us just because we are not as intellectual as them. He described the convenience as extreme on this reasoning, but as far as I’m aware, there are plausible conditions to which must be met for a subject to be rational. Those conditions include; the ability to reason, to reflect on one’s moral status, and to appreciate the moral status of others. Obviously, animals fail to meet the following conditions, therefore, their life isn’t as valuable as ours, but that doesn’t justify our rights to abuse them. However, it is also permissible to kill non-human, but only if good outcomes outweigh it. This is relevant to the alien case because as intellectual beings, they must have some form of conditions in which a subject must meet to be rational too and as the dominant beings of our planet, surely, we are some importance to them to at least meet some of their conditions for rationality. Overall, the complexity of these situations used is in relevance to Norcross’s premise three and four but these only points out Norcross’s misconception of intellectuality to rationalize. He rather uses the general definition of intelligence than for rationalization because it’s easier to reason for