The purpose of this essay is to evaluate Alastair Norcross's arguments from the text Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases. In short, Norcross argues that it is wrong for humans to consume factory-produced meat, solely to enhance their taste experience, because of the suffering the animals are subjected to. To evaluate Norcross's argument, Peter Carruther's position is used as a potential objection, among other things. Carruthers believes and argues that animals have no moral standing, but what makes Carruthers' argument extra interesting is that he believes that we humans have certain obligations towards animals, even though they have no moral standing. In order to clarify Norcross's argument, all the premises are laid out and I present potential objections to them. In short, I argue that Norcross's argument is strong because Norcross provides good support for his premises and that gives us good reason to believe the premises.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:uu-504774 |
| Date | January 2023 |
| Creators | Hoas, Lovisa |
| Publisher | Uppsala universitet, Filosofiska institutionen |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | Swedish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0022 seconds