In Norcross conclusion was don’t eat factory farm animal due to the way they were raised, not saying that we cannot meat but to mainly only open range growing animals. He uses argument by analogy as A has probably P, B is like A, therefore, B has probably P. This argument is A story of Fred in the situation of the puppies, B is a situation of animals raised in factory farms, P is that immortality of Perpetuating the situation. We covered the story of Fred and the puppies we said no that is wrong, even with the harvest cocoamones, in this discussion, one of the company dated then it must be morally right. Even if it enhances a gustatory experience. However, animals (video, chicken, and beef) they all still suffer at the hands of somebody else farming animals for their meat, with that being said you still need me proteins in your diet to be healthy. With Norcross objections, everything comes out between A and B if A good, and condemns A and if not A condemns be so of course this undermines his argument.
With the second objection is that many consumers are unaware of the treatment of animals to retrieve the meat that we as humans eat. With his objections, critical difference between fred’s behavior and recovering the cocoamones and meat eaters of the factory grounds animals if we don’t buy the meat ourselves someone else will so that will not be
…show more content…
The theory or idea that animal has rights comes from the rights that are traditionally moral and politically correct rights is a virtue from the type of culture that we are. Animal liberation comes from the utilitarian tradition that comes from ethics and mortality as coming about as a result of pleasure and/or pain, as someone’s overall well-being. When animals are caged harvest, this diminishes their well-being, which gives us the mortality that we address their decreased well-being and prescribes to us to liberate