Factory-Farmed Meat Flashcards
what is the utilitarian argument against factory farming?
P1: if one consumes factory farmed meat, one supports the creation of more misery than happiness
P2: if one supports the creation of more misery than happiness, one is doing something morally wrong
C: if one consumes factory farmed meat, one is doing something morally wrong
what are the lines of attack
premise 1:
- is an empirical issue(based on experience and observation not logic)
- possible objection: an individuals decision to not consume factory farmed meat makes essentially zero difference to the industry
premise 2:
- premise is overtly utilitarian
-possible objections: not a utilitarian, morally relevant difference between humans and animals(rationality objection, ethics of care objection)
what is the rationality objection reply to the utilitarian argument
the interests of humans outweighs the interests of non human animals
- attacks premise 2, argue that the creation of non human animals misery is outweighed by the creation of human happiness
- humans are rational because we make rational discriminations, including between good/bad, right/wrong etc
what are the replies to the rationality objection?
- it could be proving too much(not all humans are rational) or proving too little(is it ok to treat a non rational but intelligent animal like farm animals are treated?)
- moral agents vs moral patients: it matters how moral agents act, and it matters how patients are treated, non rational animals are still moral patients
what is the ethics of care objection to the utilitarian argument
the interests of humans and some other animals(eg. pets) outweigh the interests of farm animals.
we care about some and we dont care about others
what does begging the question mean?
it is when a premise of an argument already assumed the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting/proving it.
what are the replies to the ethics of care objection
problems:
1) possibly question begging, assumes we dont have a duty to care for animals just because we already dont care about them
2) we dont all care/not care abou the same set of animals
3) not all of us care about other human beings!
4) what is there exists superior beings that dont care about us and want to eat us?
what is Norcross’ puppy argument?
P1: if its wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, it’s wrong to support factory farming
P2: it is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure
C: therefore its wrong to support factory farming
what was the hypothetical scenario norcross used to formulate the puppy argument?
Fred after an accident lost some chemical in his brain that enables him to taste chocolate. The only way to get this chemical is to extract it from tortured puppy’s brains by killing them, and it is only temporary, meaning to he needs a continuous supply in order to taste chocolate for the rest of his life.
He ends up producing the chemical in his basement, by torturing puppies and then killing them for it.
Lastly, he decides to open a cafe with chocolate desserts that use the chemical, because it makes chocolate taste so good.
The question is, is it morally right to eat at fred’s?
there is another version of the puppy argument more directly linked to the fred scenario, what is it?
P1: eating dessert at Fred’s is morally the same as consuming factory farmed meat
P2: You already believe that whether or not you action/in-action would discourage Fred from torturing puppies, it’s wrong to eat dessert at Fred’s
C: You ought also to believe that whether or not you action/in-action
what is the texans challenge
modus ponens and modus tollens have the first premise in the same format (if P then Q)
because puppy argument is a modus ponens, texans argue the modus tollens and say that it is not wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, which means that its not wrong to support factory farming
why is the puppy argument susceptible to the texans challenge
because norcross is relying on the audience to share the moral judgement that it is wrong to torture puppies, perhaps trying to tug at their hearts
what is lomasky’s reply to premise 1 of the puppy argument
- he question why premise 1 is true, are the 2 cases morally alike? it is claiming that factory farmed animals are treated as badly as the puppies, may be an exaggeration.
- could also be anthropomorphizing; we would be miserable living like factory farmed animals, but we are imagining what it would be like for them, when we simply dont know. he compares conditions on a farm to those in the wild, may be quite similar
what are lomasky’s independent reasons why the puppy argument’s conclusion is false anyway
he grants hedonic utilitarianism, which implies that as long as factory farmed animals have more pleasure in their lives than pain, their lives are worth living. He argues that it is very likely that they experience more pleasure than pain in their lives
what is lomasky’s utilitarian argument
P1: If one consumes factory farmed meat, one supports the creation of more happiness than misery
P2: If one supports the creation of more happiness than misery, then one is doing something morally right
C: if one consumes factory farmed meat, one is doing something morally right
footnote on premise 1:
- Factory farming creates more happiness than misery so long as factory farmed animals have more pleasure than pain in their lives on average, and humans derive pleasure from eating their meat on average
- must also consider that these animals wouldnt exist if not for the industry
