Question 1. (679 Words)
Curnutt believes that the prima facie wrongness of animal-eating has not been defeated by additional factors which serve as the overriding reason. From his argument, David Curnutt claims that animal-eating is Ultima facia morally wrong. He further explains there are at least four grounds for overriding this wrong which is traditional-cultural, aesthetic, convenience, nutrition.
Firstly, Animal-eating is a social practice that deeply embeds in the modern culture. Slavery, the oppression of women, and institutionalized racism also once had this status; however, few if any supposes that status is what makes practices morally right or wrong. Slavery, for example, is wrong because it requires the persistent exploitation, coercion and degrading of innocent people, but not because it is extinct in our society. The fact that practice has tradition on its side and a solid standing in certain cultures does not mean it carries any moral capacity.
Secondly, Animal flesh is regarded by most people as esthetically pleasing. For example, animal body parts are prepared for consumption in several ways such as employing cooking techniques, spices and accompaniments. The aesthetic attractions of other practices are regarded as irrelevant to their moral appraisal. Heliogabalus had masses of …show more content…
The first argument is that we do not have enough information to analyze the truth of rule-consequentialist opinions. The second argument is that the cases generated from rule-consequentialism create what Rodin calls, the impasse problem. According to Rodin, the impasse problem is, “the existence of equally plausible rule-consequentialist arguments for countervailing conclusions.” (Disputed Moral Issues, p.576) In simpler terms, this essentially means that the arguments in rule-consequentialism contradict themselves and therefore, are epistemologically weak as explained
Curnutt believes that the prima facie wrongness of animal-eating has not been defeated by additional factors which serve as the overriding reason. From his argument, David Curnutt claims that animal-eating is Ultima facia morally wrong. He further explains there are at least four grounds for overriding this wrong which is traditional-cultural, aesthetic, convenience, nutrition.
Firstly, Animal-eating is a social practice that deeply embeds in the modern culture. Slavery, the oppression of women, and institutionalized racism also once had this status; however, few if any supposes that status is what makes practices morally right or wrong. Slavery, for example, is wrong because it requires the persistent exploitation, coercion and degrading of innocent people, but not because it is extinct in our society. The fact that practice has tradition on its side and a solid standing in certain cultures does not mean it carries any moral capacity.
Secondly, Animal flesh is regarded by most people as esthetically pleasing. For example, animal body parts are prepared for consumption in several ways such as employing cooking techniques, spices and accompaniments. The aesthetic attractions of other practices are regarded as irrelevant to their moral appraisal. Heliogabalus had masses of …show more content…
The first argument is that we do not have enough information to analyze the truth of rule-consequentialist opinions. The second argument is that the cases generated from rule-consequentialism create what Rodin calls, the impasse problem. According to Rodin, the impasse problem is, “the existence of equally plausible rule-consequentialist arguments for countervailing conclusions.” (Disputed Moral Issues, p.576) In simpler terms, this essentially means that the arguments in rule-consequentialism contradict themselves and therefore, are epistemologically weak as explained