Assess The Significance Of Norcross's Analogy

In the beginning of Norcross, Alastair introduces an analogy. The analogy consists of two premises and a conclusion. The first of the premises looks into the story of Fred. Fred was in an auto accident and he damaged his Godiva gland. Therefore, he decided to torture puppies in order to produce cocoamone. Cocoamone is the hormone that lets people enjoy the taste of chocolate. In the second premise, Norcross discusses about the situation of the animals raised in farms. How could they be different from the torture of puppies by Fred? He looks further into the situation by giving similarities between the two premises. Norcross examines the stress filled lives of the animals in farms. He suggests that these animals are confined, cramped, and

He explains of the stress filled lives these animals endure for the pleasure of humans. The humans are not properly aware of the situations of these animals. They are consistently in cramped cages in farms, while human’s sense of morality towards farm animals has been nonexistent. Norcross’s conclusion does not argue against eating meat, but he justifies it to an extent. Norcross compares two distinctive creatures in his argument, and their comparison does not justify his point of view. Puppies are animals that are raised and loved by many people across the world. Of course, any dog owner would be sympathetic to the torturing of these puppies for gustatory pleasure. Farm animals are raised for the sole purpose of profit and value. Norcross’s argument does not have any validity, and therefore, does not contain enough evidence to support it. While on the other hand, Machan argues against animals having any rights. He believes inanimate objects are less important than animate objects. In his example, he compares rocks and dolphins, as well as plants and dogs. He argues to an extent that animal rights activists believe that animate objects have more rights than inanimate