Moral Permissibility of Eating Animals
Paper #3 Moral Permissibility of Eating Animals
Is it morally permissible to eat animals? Explain Norcross’ and Korsgaard’s arguments for a negative answer to this question. Then raise an objection to each of their arguments, and explain whether and why you find the objections you raise convincing. You may want to consider how your answer to this question is affected by the way the animals are raised (e.g., factory farming vs. “ethically raised meat”).
Your paper should be based entirely on assigned class readings on the subject or our class discussion; do not consult outside sources. Cite the texts parenthetically by title and page number. You are not allowed to copy paste from the lecture slides; it is plagiarism, please see the syllabus for a link for academic honesty rules. Students are responsible for knowing, understanding and acting in full accord with these policies.
Your paper will be graded on (a) the clarity and completeness of your explanation of the relevant text and (b) the clarity, plausibility, and originality of your critical evaluation
MAKE SURE to have a clear thesis that you develop throughout the essay. In the introduction of your paper, you should explain the roadmap of the paper. CHECK the guidelines on Blackboard for writing philosophy papers.
Avoid giving any introduction about lives of the authors. Do not use LONG quotes from the texts; you only have 2-3 pages to explain their views and raise an objection etc., so do not let the authors; you should be the voice in the paper by summarizing their views. You must be able to paraphrase their views, instead of copy pasting paragraphs from their works. QUOTATIONS are needed only to document important or controversial points of an author’s view, and they should be short. For any quotation you make, explain what the quoted text says in your own words and explain its relevance to your discussion. Do not make quotations speak for you. (One main point of your essays is for you to show the instructor that you have not only read but also understood the texts and issues.) HOWEVER, even if you paraphrase the assigned readings in your paper, you are required to provide proper citations in parenthesis; otherwise it is called plagiarism. See the syllabus for a link for academic honesty rules and learn the rules. Students are responsible for knowing, understanding and acting in full accord with these policies.
While the writing style is less important than the content, careless errors in spelling, formatting, and grammar can negatively affect your grade.
Course Title
Professor
Date
The Moral Permissibility of Eating Animals
The moral quandaries surrounding the consumption of animals have ignited a fervent and contentious discourse in recent times. Alastair Norcross and Christine Korsgaard have presented compelling arguments asserting that eating animals is morally impermissible. Their reasoning is based on the existence of specific individuals, known as marginal cases, who lack the capacity for moral reflection and the understanding that animals are capable of experiencing and comprehending suffering, respectively. While these viewpoints offer a refreshing perspective, they have yet to be without scrutiny. This paper aims to analyze Norcross' and Korsgaard's arguments critically and the objections raised against them to assess the moral permissibility of consuming animals.
According to Norcross, the moral permissibility of consuming animals is questionable due to the marginal cases of humans who lack the capacity for ethical reflection. Norcross challenges the traditional belief that rationality is the morally relevant distinction between humans and animals on three grounds: the failure to acknowledge that some humans are incapable of moral reflection, the oversight of reciprocity as the core of morality, and the inability to establish the moral significance of this distinction in relation to animals' status as moral patients versus moral agents (Puppies, Pigs, and people, 239). Equally, Christine Korsgaard's argument is rooted in treating animals with respect and dignity. She argues that using animals merely as a means to an end is degrading and violates their rights as fellow creatures. She says, “… most of the things that human beings do to non-human animals that come up for moral scrutiny are natural acts,” thus, we should not take it as evidence that these actions are not wrong (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, 98). Furthermore, any action that causes animal suffering is considered morally wrong and not permissible.
A counterargument to Norcross' stance posits that animals do not possess the capability for moral contemplation and, therefore, cannot be expected to exhibit moral responsibility. Carl Cohen argues that “the issue is one of kind… What humans retain when disabled, animals have never had (Puppies, Pigs, and People, 239).” This conveys the nature of human beings as superior to animals, which brings about a different relationship dynamic. As a result, assigning animals a different moral status is likely redundant compared to humans, as they are of other species. Still, this objection fails to acknowledge the undeniable reality that animals undergo suffering and pain, thereby requiring their treatment with reverence and empathy, regardless of their incapacity for moral responsibility. Although animals may lack moral reflection, they are capable of perceiving and understanding suffering, thus prohibiting their treatment as mere expendable tools.
One objection to Korsgaard's argument regarding animals’ lack of moral rights is based on their inability to re...