Norcross Killing Farm Animals Summary

Norcross compares the killing farm animals to the abuse and killing of puppies. In his argument he shares a story about a man named Fred, who was in a car accident and requires the puppies for gustatory pleasure. Fred’s gadivia gland was injured in the accident. This gland produces a hormone called cocamone that allows Fred to taste and enjoy chocolate. He discovered that only puppies that have experienced stress and suffering are able to produce this hormone. Fred thinks that puppies are just mere animals therefore, their lives are not as important as human pleasure.
The argument against Fred’s story is, if he gave up abusing and killing puppies, it would make a difference but if one human were to give up eating factory made chickens it wouldn’t make a difference due to that large number of people consuming them. Norcross argues that it would make a difference if just one person were to stop eating factory made chickens. He concludes that one person has a one in ten chance in saving 250,000 chickens in a year. Although, there is a small chance of that one person making a difference, the stakes are high if they don't give up eating the chickens. This is similar to if someone rode a bike without a helmet, even though there is a small chance someone would fall and injure their head, the risk of not wearing the helmet is too. If this one person …show more content…
Therefore, what Fred is doing is wrong because he is torturing the puppies himself and what consumers of factory made chickens do not torture the animal themselves, making more acceptable to consume. The second objection is some consumers of the factory made chickens are unaware of the conditions the chickens are in prior to their consumption. Therefore, if someone is uneducated about these conditions they cant be held morally accountable for the suffering and death of these