Arguments Against Alastair Norcross

742 Words3 Pages
Alastair Norcross takes the position in the animal rights argument that torturing animals for their use is unacceptable. He asks to consider a case where a man, Fred, lost his ability to enjoy chocolate because he lost the ability to produce Cocoamone. Fred’s doctor tells him that a recent study shows that, when puppies are tortured and then brutally killed, they produce cocoamone that Fred can then harvest. So Fred sets up his basement where he can torture puppies and then slaughter them in order to taste chocolate again. Norcross claims that this is obviously wrong and draws a correlation between Fred’s case and the situation where we cause chickens to suffer in order to mass produce their meat. Norcross claims that these two situations are comparable and that both are morally wrong. Some people might say that chocolate is not necessary to sustain human life whereas Norcross says that meat is not critical either. Vegans can survive without meat quite easily. Another objection to his argument is that one person will not have an effect on the production of meat. Norcross refers to this as the “Tragedy of commons.” Norcross compares this to voting and how one person could view that as one vote not making a difference in the election. Consider that no one…show more content…
The two are not arguments against each other, but simply two arguments on either side of the topic. Machan claims that animals do not have rights, but he also says that we should keep in mind that animals can feel pain and enjoyment and that we should consider that when we use them. He says that if we kill them we should do it humanely. Norcross claims that we should not be torturing animals for their use, but he does not specifically say that we cannot kill them. Both conclusions can be true because animals do not have to have rights to stop torturing them. Also, animals do not have to be tortured to use them regardless of their
Open Document