Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
9 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Norcross
|
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
|
|
Possible relevant differences between Fred’s Basement vs. Factory Farm Meat Eating (5)
|
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. |
|
Norcross’ response to the worry that, unlike Fred, our individual restraint will not save animals in factory farms from suffering and death
|
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 |
|
Equal Consideration of Interests Thesis
|
- 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 |
|
Equal Consideration of Interests Thesis in terms of species:
|
- 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 |
|
Marginal Cases Argument, Objection
|
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)
|
|
Marginal Cases Argument, Objection (response)
|
- 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 |
|
Objection from Group Membership
|
maybe the group 'human beings' is morally superior because of intelligence and mentally disabled people's moral superiority is grounded in their group membership
|
|
Norcross' response to Group Membership Objection
|
Heaven case:
not fair to give this verdict just from group membership (9/10 good vs. 9/10 evil) |