In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of chocolate due to a car accident. Daniel Koslovsky 10/3/12 Intro to Philosophy Response Paper #2 Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases In the article “Puppies, Pigs, and People” Alastair Norcross lays out his argument for vegetarianism by creating the story of Fred. Because of this argument, vegans can say that if sentience is not a basis for rights, then we can’t give babies, the senile, the comatose or the … the argument from “marginal cases” reveals a deeper moral intuition: regardless of one’s intellect, or favorable draws in the natural (and social) lottery, harm and death are bad to anyone capable of experiencing harm and death. First, he presents an analogous situation, the case of chocolate mousse a-la-bama , (...)) Environmental Philosophy in Philosophy of Biology. Alastair Norcross, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” Overview of the Article: You will be providing your reader with an overview of the issue that your author is addressing. 7) What evolutionary argument might someone make against Norcross and how does he respond? it gives him a compound that enhances his gustatory pleasure. Test. Taylor miller and dylan williams Fred's Basement Conclusion Norcross brings up an example about men and women and says, what if there was statistically relevant differences in the mental abilities between men and women, would such differences justify us preferring a man that's correct incorrect. He is a … The Argument By Analogy: Alastair Norcross asks us to consider the following case: Fred and the Puppies Fred has an auto accident. Write. Given the scenarios that Norcross gives and the objections that Norcross faces, I will attempt to tell why Norcross’ argument makes sense and can be used as a great way to think about factory farming. Animal Abuse In Factory Farming 1096 Words | 5 Pages. All … What does Norcross mean by marginal cases. The argument from marginal cases (also known as the argument from species overlap) is a philosophical argument within animal rights theory regarding the moral status of non-human animals. Posted by. Vegetarianism in Applied Ethics. • Permanently cognitively impaired adults … Vegetarianism in Applied Ethics. … 1 Norcross Against Factory-Farming 1. Extract of sample "Puppies, Pigs, and People eating meat and marginal cases" Download file to see previous pages In his creative and provocative paper Norcross contends that there is no need for humans to continue consuming factory-farmed meat. Animal Abuse In Factory Farming 1096 Words | 5 Pages. 2 Ibid. Philosophical Perspectives, 18: 229 – 245. , [Google Scholar], p. 230–231). Key Concepts: Terms in this set (16) Fred's Basement:-the case of Fred-argument by analogy-His basement His head trauma-The only way to satisfy his love for chocolate is to torture and … Since there is so much needless suffering associated with factory farming, … This is because there is no set guidelines that clearly separate all humans from all animals. << /Length 5 0 R /Filter /FlateDecode >> ���AYI4� U߃C�i������5�e��Vb��T�����1��I�܃v/����/Li��RI1����|���nQ���Ϋ_g��g���UL�qҦ�#����*�^��N��ˡ��.���sb�ǐ�'��*M���%n�x��'�cʡp5�1���C;%i����(� Spell. This is because there is no setguidelines that clearly separate all humans from all animals. there are marginal cases such as babies and the mentally challenged. b. Education and career. a. a. When they enter the basement they are confronted by the following scene: Twenty-six small wire cages, each containing a puppy, some whining, some whimpering, some howling. Marginal cases pose a significant challenge to this view “Whatever kind of rationality is selected as justifying the attribution of superior moral status to humans will either be lacking in some humans or present in some animals” (Norcross, 316) The argument from marginal cases: It is permissible to kill and eat farm animals only if it is permissible to kill and eat humans with the … He visits a doctor who tells him that his “godiva gland” has been damaged, and he can no longer produce … This talk is part of 2005-2006 Colloquia – Animals and Humans Event sponsored by Scientia Institute, Rice University. His defense? In Norcross's essay ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: eating meat and marginal cases’ he claims that we should not eat farm factory meat since it is not worth our own gustatory pleasure. Bookmark 64 citations 28 . How does Norcross use marginal cases to critique the traditional view there are marginal cases such as babies and the mentally challenged. He seems to recover just fine until he discovers that he can no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate. b. … Second, Norcross offers a threshold argument in which … Alastair Norcross (in Puppies, pigs and People) uses Fred and factory farmed meat, the rationality gambit, and the problem of marginal cases to prove that, no, farm animals are not morally inferior to you or I, and yes, boycotting these large industries will make a difference. Which of the following responses to the argument from marginal cases does Norcross not consider? The only thing stopping us from immediately putting the case for obligatory veganism on the no fly list is the Argument from Marginal Cases, which vegans desperately call in to mop up all their philosophical messes. The term is "marginal cases", not "marginal people". Which of the following objections does Norcross. Some people don't know about the treatment of animals on factory farms. a. First, he presents an analogous situation, the case of chocolate mousse a-la-bama, in order to argue that we, individually, are not causally impotent. Alastair Norcross is an associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado at Boulder, specializing in normative ethics, applied ethics, and political philosophy. Taylor miller and dylan williams Fred's Basement Conclusion Norcross brings up an example about men and women and says, what if there was statistically relevant differences in the mental abilities between men and women, would such differences justify us preferring a man that's Alastair Norcross Tom Regan’s criterion for inherent value is being the “experiencing subject of a life” (ESL). I think any attempt to maintain that humans are more special than non-humans regardless of any other consideration, is just question-begging. 2004. Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases by Alastair J Norcross - Duration: 1:34:22. How does Norcross use marginal cases to critique the traditional view. ��&q*��BU�5�����j�Н9�$��p>%_���+�X�u�Ն��:���p�9~�Y.-. Article [PDF] 25 comments. In his paper, ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases,’ Alastair Norcross argues that causal impotence arguments like these are misguided. In his paper, ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases,’ Alastair Norcross argues that causal impotence arguments like these are misguided. We are evolved to be this way. A brief discussion of Norcross's essay. 3 Niemi, Jari. Because we also have an emotional attachment to many animals, c. Because what outrages human sensibilities is a very fragile thing, d. Because our emotional attachment to fellow human beings is irrational. Consider the story of Fred, who receives a visit from the police one day. (Norcross, 2008) He states that there is an issue with stating that marginal cases may not be treated as animals are because the presence or lack of the feature in any particular case is not important; it is whether or not that species is meant to have that feature. R. G. Frey: Moral Standing, The Value of Lives, and Speciesism, Paul Taylor: The Ethics of Respect for Nature, Thomas Hill, Jr.: Ideals of Human Excellence and Preserving Natural Environments, Judith Jarvis Thomson: A Defense of Abortion, Philippa Foot: Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect, Igor Primoratz: Justifying Legal Punishment, Martin Luther King, Jr.: Letter from Birmingham City Jail, Michael Huemer: America’s Unjust Drug War, Michael Sandel: The Case against Perfection, Julian Savulescu: Genetic Interventions and the Ethics of Enhancement of Human Beings, Louis Pojman: The Case against Affirmative Action, Daniel Hausman: Affirmative Action: Bad Arguments and Some Good Ones. Norcross graduated from Oxford University in 1983 and earned his Ph.D. at Syracuse University in 1991 under the supervision of Jonathan Bennett. 7) What evolutionary argument might someone make against Norcross and how does he respond? We are justified in attributing a different moral status to animals who are just as cognitively sophisticated as marginal humans. In Alastair Norcross’ paper, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” he describes a situation in which a man, Fred, has lost his ability to enjoy the gustatory pleasure of … Alastair Norcross - "Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases". 8. b. This, ... Norcross puts the point nicely, “That animals can’t be moral agents does not seem relevant to their status as moral patients.” I think he is fundamentally correct in this, thus the modus ponens argument succeeds and eating factory farmed meat is morally wrong. Scientia Institute Rice University 855 views stream The Argument from Marginal Cases is rooted in the idea that certain human beings are “marginal,” in that they are considered lesser, in their abilities or in their value, than other humans. In 2007, he transferred to University of Colorado at Boulder from Rice University, where he had been since 2002, after teaching for ten years at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, where he was the Easterwood Associate Professor of … :���2?��n���w�#i������|��6�z]��;�!q�j� ���5�f�G���Ϲ2�pH��D`�1i��\�1�"�=��0�AVdaN�$�W��b�5�O{W�v-��^� �ސ �$�cQ�].�{�R1-v�fݘ�H����^���i^ح��R���_�/bB�=��"ԧ�g��R�����F^r8rf��������E�T]!��������W�`׮�U56��7��%=��b�i�H0`�N�����!9�X�J5��, �gX��­[��3��*!�0�P� b�cD�t�^7����F�b�ތf%\���`�����xYve?߁rQIb�V�Ͷ �-���7fK+h-*uTyz;9�a6�`wk�AY���S�V��b)�Ю��,��Ob0ı��fCo�7������e�� �n��v��D@�Bf�:�i)Lsِ�Y·�$�LE1� 0G�%E���.�vk�t�!��=i~�,�P��~����X��]$��i61�����D0Q���|9�c�,@F����F�i�i> d��s9q~���4!�ׇ�l�l /�?��D�(Ifai�H��M��\ʕ��!�yq�ޛ��_0'4��Fa��H����s���A���ےf+6�8����g>v��&ù�6�t�:���;�H\ᓡv5���8=k,H;EWN 0ќ�褱�e��]�]�2 ��cP'5( Cog is at the margin of the human spectrum. Download Citation | Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases | Consider the story of Fred, who receives a visit from the police … puppies, pigs, and people: eating meat and marginal cases Alastair Norcross Rice University 1. Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases by Alastair Norcross. Flashcards. Alastair Norcross is an Associate Professor of philosophy specializing in normative ethics, applied ethics, and political philosophy.. Scientists are often challenged with the so-called marginal case argument. We are asked to spell out the criteria that make our experiments justifiable in animals but not in humans with comparable abilities and therefore comparable interests. The police discovered that Fred had been confining batches of 26 puppies to small wire cages in his basement. Direct download . They have been summoned by Fred’s neighbors, who have been disturbed by strange sounds emanating from Fred’s basement. The Argument By Analogy: Alastair Norcross asks us to consider the following case: Fred and the Puppies Fred has an auto accident. A second response to the argument from marginal cases is to concede that cognitively deficient humans really do have an inferior moral status to normal humans. ,��Ш.��۲�9n��-�^LϢ X eating and torturing something seems incapable of moral reason. a. Factory farm produced meat is objectionable because of the suffering that animals undergo in order to produce large amounts of meat efficiently. Such as (only use “such as” if you are continuing the sentence, but not to start a new sentence.) d. Nothing can be both a moral agent and a moral patient. 27. In his paper, ‘Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases,’ Alastair Norcross argues that causal impotence arguments like these are misguided. Norcross' paper, "Puppies, Pigs, and People" begins with the story of Fred, who… The Problem of Marginal Cases The Problem of Marginal Cases Whatever kind and level of rationality that is required for full moral status that excludes animals, there will be some humans who fail to have that status. x���vG���x […] Since no one is in the … MARGINAL CASES Alastair Norcross Rice University 1. … PLAY. Use the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Which of the following responses to the argument from marginal cases does Norcross. This should involve maybe one to three paragraphs (or so)—it depends upon the article, your approach to the article, and your prose style. List of philosophical publications by Alastair Norcross (University of Colorado, Boulder), including "Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases", "“The Scalar Approach to Utilitarianism”", and "The Impotence of the Causal Impotence Objection". In the article "Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal cases" by Alastair Norcross, he mainly argued that factory-farmed meat is morally wrong and that people who support it (including those consuming factory-farmed meat) are also morally wrong.The only point I'm interested in, is that he argued that the pain caused to these factory-farmed animals grossly … A: The argument for marginal cases claims that someone can’t think that both humans matter morally and animals do not. share. Export citation . Chimp is at the margin of the animal spectrum. Created by. Humans are superior to animals because they are created in God's image. Article [PDF] Close. Argument from Marginal Cases) beruht auf dem in der Ethik recht allgemeinen Problem der Grenzfälle. Suppose someone says that suffering only matters to something with some sort of capabilities such as linguistic ability, … Fred’s Basement Consider the story of Fred, who receives a visit from the police one day. Alastair Norcross, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” Overview of the Article: You will be providing your reader with an overview of the issue that your author is addressing. In the article " Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal cases " by Alastair Norcross, he mainly argued that factory-farmed meat is morally wrong and that people who support it (including those consuming factory-farmed meat) are also morally wrong. "denies that we have to attribute different moral status to marginal humans...." -Norcross' responses to this objection Shareable Link. it gives him a compound that is good for his health. Archived. The argument from marginal cases does not preclude animal research as Animal Rights activists suggest, but it does show very powerfully the seriousness of animal suffering. Fred’s Basement Consider the story of Fred, who receives a visit from the police one day. An individual who consistently acts morally, b. They have been summoned by Fred’s neighbors, who have been disturbed by strange sounds emanating from Fred’s basement. Learn. Fred loves chocolate mousse but because of a recent accident he no longer produces cocoamone and therefore can no … Alastair Norcross: Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases. What widespread practice does Norcross argue is morally equivalent to Fred's torture of puppies? 4 He also argues that Fred's gustatory pleasure does not outweigh the suffering of the puppies, and the same for factory-farmed meat (Norcross, 2004 Norcross, A. b. Alastair Norcross - "Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases". An individual who is capable of acting morally, c. An individual whose interests are morally considerable, d. An individual who is incapable of acting morally. An icon used to represent a menu that can be toggled by interacting with this icon. ���U?CX�ɠ���sa�^������Vg�%���cE�Z3�_�� x[���̒��f�����"�.g)1��,���v�i��G�:�yj�����x6���"@rA��ǔ�QB�^/�"$*r(B9�s[@xi��Q7����� �JxS�&3�6�S������G�6uTyj�2,bؙI����X�͉�f-�;�[�7`�:�*%��nS+D�!���~cZ���)Aɼ��4{%3���L�Rx1{5�];7N��{�D7���t|!���C9q��`���r��z��"�v��AQџ���d%n ઍ�����A�f]/���UxhZF��:���� Wiley Online Library He is a defender of utilitarianism. All of the above correct … This, well known argument attempts to show that animals have a moral relevant status as moral patients in a similar way that certain humans are moral patients but not moral agents. At the heart of the AMC is the comparability of individuals like Cog and Chimp. c. Humans are superior to animals because they are rational. Justifies using some humans (marginal cases) for food and animal experiments Responses to the argument from marginal cases: 1. Gravity. Export citation . What does Norcross think is the relationship between being a moral agent and being a moral patient? Puppies, pigs, and people: Eating meat and marginal cases. Alastair Norcross (in Puppies, pigs and People) uses Fred and factory farmed meat, the rationality gambit, and the problem of marginal cases to prove that, no, farm animals are not morally inferior to you or I, and yes, boycotting these large industries will make a difference.