Comparing Puppies, Pigs, And Marginal Cases

1521 Words7 Pages
Yen Lu Ruby Fowler Eng 102 – 1049 5th Oct., 2014 Animals versus Humans: The Moral Issue At some point, one is going to have an unavoidable interaction with animals in his or her life. Although meat consumption may be a daily routine for many people, the moral issue between the animals and humans has been an ongoing debate for many years. Which would you consider more immoral: someone who tortures animals for their own satisfaction or someone who still consume meat despite knowing the pain that the animals have to go through? Through the “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” analysis article, Alastair Norcross provides us with a powerful argument regarding the moral issue between animals and humans. Through the utilization…show more content…
Fred tortures his puppies by exposing them to severe stress and suffering because doing so would allow them to produce the cocoamone hormone in their godiva gland, which they normally wouldn't do, just to satisfy Fred's own love for chocolate because his godiva gland has been damaged and needed hormone replacement from the puppies (230). Norcross uses Fred’s case to makes the readers feel horrified through Fred’s actions of treating puppies, and think about why would people even dare to harm animals. Despite that, it doesn’t apply to all types as animals. People still eat meat from farm animals such as chickens, pigs and cows, yet they don’t feel pity toward those animals as much as opposed to animals raised as pets, such as puppies in this case. The way he uses direct, and strong transition in his last paragraph gives the reader an idea of what he’s going to talk about in the next paragraph in which he questions, “are there any significant differences between Fred’s behavior and their behavior”…show more content…
An example would be “What they may do (and have done when I have presented them with this argument) is explain their reluctance to do so as a mere sentimental preference, as opposed to a morally mandated choice. They may claim...They may then justify their different treatment of animals either on the grounds that they are simply giving some animals more than they deserve, or that they are attending to their own interests” (237). The use of the qualifier word “may” doesn’t really limit Norcross’ argument to not be any more powerful because he uses it to inform readers how some people may react in a certain, but not certain that everyone’s going to have the same reaction when looking at the same thing. He has provided us with so many information, examples, possibility argument from opposing views and arguments from other people’s counterargument. This quotation can also be used as an example of how Norcross has illustrated the possible argument from the reader objections that the audience might identify with this or counter argue it when they come across

    More about Comparing Puppies, Pigs, And Marginal Cases

      Open Document