Free Guide’s Name Essay Sample

The question of ethics has always been a complex one. For every answer that theories and theorists from various disciples have provided, an even more complex real life scenario has put to the test and, more often than not, thrown up new questions that require answers. It is for this reason that philosophers and theorists have constantly used analogies to illustrate their ideas. Alastair Norcross’s paper ‘Puppies, Pigs, and People’ highlights this technique perfectly.
The core question being asked is whether or not it is ethical to pursue a certain pleasurable experience even if the pursuer if fully aware of the fact that unethical means were used. In highlighting the question, Norcross provides a hypothetical situation where an individual is forced to violate ethical standards for animal treatment so that he could have pleasure in eating chocolate again. Without outright dismissing the individual as either psychopathic or otherwise mentally deranged, Norcross attempts to understand why the readers feel repulsed at this example but not by the fact that billions of chickens are put through similar ordeals simply to provide meat. By flipping the scenario and making torturing and killing puppies a thriving business, Norcross points out that the Doctrine of Double Effect might be at play, which dulls individual ethical sensibilities and causes them to accept as unavoidable by-products, the cruelty which goes into making meat. The next move that Norcross makes, is to convert the argument into logical terms and show how easy it is to manipulate the argument one way or another. As the author wryly says, ‘One philosopher’s modus ponens, as they say, is another Texan’s modus tollens’.
This argument does not hold water so the issue is passed over to another argument – that of humans needs versus animal care. Essentially, the claim is that rationality separates humans from animals and permits humans to subject animals to any kind of cruelty. Once again, the terms used in this argument are too vague – are people who do not possess or use rationality in the strict sense also deserve to be tortured and eaten? Since this cannot be the case, the move is made to argue from a marginal cases stance. This is by far the most effective mode of argumentation for this issue, but it too requires very large assumptions to be made about what is marginal and therefore excusable (or damnable, as the case may be). The last argument is that of agent and patient – whether or not animals possess the same capacity of pain as humans. Even here, both sides require assumptions which cannot always be backed up in order to make their claim. But, the aggregate of all the possible argumentative stances, it seems that Norcross posses, it does seem that his conclusions are true.