Should all meat-eaters be fully blameworthy for their indulgence? Many people support or decry people who are meat-eaters without knowing much background on this controversial topic. By reading the excerpt, Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases by Alastair Norcross, I have improved my perception of why so many people are against meat eating. Throughout this excerpt, Norcross believes that meat-eaters are fully blameworthy for their indulgence. On the other hand, I personally believe in the opposing view to Norcross, which will be shown throughout the rest of the paper. Within this excerpt, Norcross believes that meat eaters are fully blameworthy for their indulgence. He states, “the good they are getting from eating meat
…show more content…
Much of what Norcross states is against people acting in their own self-interest by eating meat. He believes that all people should be condemned for eating meat and gives very persuasive reasons as to why. Not only does Norcross think that many humans are selfish for eating meat, but he also believes that many humans think that they are above animals and should be treated better than animals. As we know, Norcross is against the idea of psychological egoism from the position he has stated in this reading. Norcross can be considered a utilitarian in which our actions are judged by our consequences. For example, Norcross believes that one should not eat meat because of the consequence that comes out of it that animals get tortured. He states, “the good meat eaters are getting from eating meat is outweighed by the suffering of the animals when confined and killed on factory farms” (285). He believes that by people eating meat, we are creating more evil than good. In addition, Norcross believes that by a person stopping to eat meat can actually make a difference and provide some good to these poor innocent animals. By stopping to eat meat, we would be potentially creating more good even if it is just one person. This whole idea of creating more good within our society is directly correlated to what a utilitarian
Much of what Norcross states is against people acting in their own self-interest by eating meat. He believes that all people should be condemned for eating meat and gives very persuasive reasons as to why. Not only does Norcross think that many humans are selfish for eating meat, but he also believes that many humans think that they are above animals and should be treated better than animals. As we know, Norcross is against the idea of psychological egoism from the position he has stated in this reading. Norcross can be considered a utilitarian in which our actions are judged by our consequences. For example, Norcross believes that one should not eat meat because of the consequence that comes out of it that animals get tortured. He states, “the good meat eaters are getting from eating meat is outweighed by the suffering of the animals when confined and killed on factory farms” (285). He believes that by people eating meat, we are creating more evil than good. In addition, Norcross believes that by a person stopping to eat meat can actually make a difference and provide some good to these poor innocent animals. By stopping to eat meat, we would be potentially creating more good even if it is just one person. This whole idea of creating more good within our society is directly correlated to what a utilitarian