Norcross On Animal Ethics

Front 1

Norcross

Back 1

There is no morally relevant difference between Fred's behavior and the behavior of the millions of people who purchase and consume factory-farmed meat

Front 2

Possible relevant differences between Fred’s Basement vs. Factory Farm Meat Eating (5)

Back 2

1) Most consumers of factory-farmed meat do not torture or kill any animals.
2) Most consumers are unaware of how factory-farmed animals are treated.
3) For any individual consumer of factory-farmed meat, becoming vegetarian would not prevent animal suffering—he or she could not causally impact the agribusiness.
4) The suffering of factory-farmed animals is merely a foreseen side-effect, not an intended means to obtaining gustatory pleasure. For Fred, puppy suffering is intended as a means to his pleasure.
5) Factory-farmed animals are not puppies.

Front 3

Norcross’ response to the worry that, unlike Fred, our individual restraint will not save animals in factory farms from suffering and death

Back 3

1) deny the claim of causal impotence: the actions of any particular meat consumer do make a difference (1 in 10,000)
2) threshold can now be reached faster

Front 4

Equal Consideration of Interests Thesis

Back 4

- treat like interests alike

- if X and Y have the same interest in our behaving in B way to him/her, then we have as much reason to behave in B way to X than in B way to Y

Front 5

Equal Consideration of Interests Thesis in terms of species:

Back 5

- not having body parts cut off without anesthesia
- not being pumped full of antibiotics that cause weight gain such that legs break under body weight

Front 6

Marginal Cases Argument, Objection

Back 6

perhaps there is nothing intrinsically wrong with torturing and killing mentally deficient human beings, but we shouldn't do so for practical reasons (their mentally normal families will be upset)

Front 7

Marginal Cases Argument, Objection (response)

Back 7

- it may be okay, but we don't do it for the sake of the people who love them
- maybe mentally disabled people don't have morally high status, but we don't torture because of the families
- like Kant's argument where you don't harm an animal if they are someone's pet

Front 8

Objection from Group Membership

Back 8

maybe the group 'human beings' is morally superior because of intelligence and mentally disabled people's moral superiority is grounded in their group membership

Front 9

Norcross' response to Group Membership Objection

Back 9

Heaven case:
not fair to give this verdict just from group membership (9/10 good vs. 9/10 evil)