Alaister Norcross laid out a thought experiment where Fred, a fictitious person, was caught torturing puppies so that he could h
ave the taste of chocolate; a taste he really enjoyed. The analogy being that we, as meat eaters, do similar things. We allow for the terrible lives of the animals we eat, and in some cases (see veal, foie gras, and many others) animals are directly force fed or imprisoned to enhance the taste of their body parts. Given that we do not need meat to survive, or even thrive are you a person that encourages, pays for, and participates in the death of animals for taste? (Links Below) If so, is this unethical? Would the utilitarian find the causing of harm and death of animals simply to provide a taste you like, unethical?
Is this line of questioning making you upset? If so, is it because of the socially relative norm of meat eating?
(There are many examples I can give but the Australian Government as one example, issues their dietary guidelines every year and they acknowledge a Vegan diet as healthy and supportive of human life and flourishing.
The fact that was given by Alaister Norcross is right. The thing which was done by Fred is wrong.
<u>Explanation</u>:
For the sake of us, we should not eat animals. It is a very bad thing.Fred was torturing the puppies for the taste of chocolate.
Puppies are also living creatures. It has also an alive sense and body. It is also like a human being. So we should not kill them for the sake of us.
We should think about how to improve the lives of animals and birds. For the sake of us, we should not be the reason for the death of animals. This line of questioning doesn't make me upset.
