What is the Texan’s challenge?
3. Texan’s challenge: One persons’s Modus Ponens is another Modus Tollens. –1. If its wrong to torture puppies, its wrong to support FF. –2.
Why does Norcross think the causal impotence objection fails?
We argue that Norcross’s responses ultimately fail to address the causal impotence objection. The former argument fails because it vastly oversimplifies the world in which we find ourselves.
How does Norcross respond to the objections to the challenge of marginal cases?
-Norcross’ response to this objection: –Concede that marginal humans are morally inferior to normal humans, yet reject the use of humans for food/experimentation on pragmatic grounds. Practical and emotional reasons for protecting non-rational humans.
How does Norcross respond to the charge of causal impotence?
Second, Norcross offers a threshold argument in which he argues that while we may individually be causally impotent, when we adopt moral vegetarianism in concert with others, we become causally potent in preventing harms by factory farming.
Why does Norcross think that nonhuman animals are moral patients?
Because humans are rational and non-human animals are not. Humans have different mental capacities that animals don’t have. – According to Norcross, we should reject the traditional view because of the marginal cases that are involved.
Does Norcross’s argument imply that we should never eat meat?
Conclusion: Norcross concludes that there are no morally relevant differences between Fred’s behavior and our own when we purchase meat raised in the brutal conditions of factory farms (i.e., nearly ALL meat). But, then, it is seriously morally wrong to purchase (most) meat.
Is Alastair Norcross a utilitarian?
Alastair Norcross is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, specializing in normative ethics, applied ethics, and political philosophy. He is a defender of utilitarianism.
What does Norcross think is the relationship between being a moral agent and being a moral patient?
What does Norcross think is the relationship between being a moral agent and being a moral patient? a. All moral agents are moral patients, but not all moral patients are moral agents.
Why does Norcross think that our emotional attachment to fellow humans Cannot justify treating marginal human beings differently from some animals?
Why does Norcross think that our emotional attachment to fellow humans cannot justify treating marginal human beings differently from some animals? Because what outrages human sensibilities is a very fragile thing.
What is Norcross’s main point in his essay?
Norcross believe that one should not eat meat that is raised in a factory. He uses an argument about torturing puppies and eating their brains. Although his argument about Fred and his extreme cruelty to feel the sensation of eating chocolate is cruel, it puts one in a state of mind to pay close attention to his point.
What are some differences between Fred and the puppies and eating factory-farmed meat that Norcross argues are irrelevant?
Fred’s behavior is immoral; gustatory pleasure is no grounds for treating puppies that way. Those who eat factory-farmed meat, however, seem to behave in relevantly similar ways, since they eat animals who endure similar treatment merely because they enjoy the taste of meat.
Which of the following does Regan claim regarding utilitarianism?
Regan argues that we should be more careful in our treatment of animals because they are instrumentally valuable. Utilitarianism, according to Regan, could be used to justify murder. Regan believes that animals have more inherent value than humans.
What justification for the treatment of animals does Regan criticize?
Regan argues that because animals have an inherent value, they shouldn’t be used in order to benefit human lives.
Which of the following views of the moral status of animals does Regan accept?
our duties involving animals are actually duties to other humans. Which of the following views of the moral status of animals does Regan accept? false because it doesn’t explain why humans and animals have value as individuals.