{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

02.16.two+kinds+of+arguments.norcross.regan

02.16.two+kinds+of+arguments.norcross.regan - E ATING RIGHT...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–15. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
EATING RIGHT: THE ETHICS OF FOOD CHOICES AND FOOD POLICY February 16, 2011 Two Kinds of Arguments for Dietary Restrictions
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Plan for Today: Admin stuff Two different kinds of arguments for dietary restrictions Moral status and marginal cases
Background image of page 2
Admin Stuff: Short Assignments Short assignment #3 (Singer’s conclusion) due tonight. Reminder: This is basically a paper chunk - the chunk you’d write explaining what’s at issue before starting in on the arguments.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Admin Stuff: Extra Credit Extra Credit #2 (Wallace and Gallistel) due Friday. Reminder: This is basically a paper chunk - the chunk you’d write explaining what’s at issue before starting in on the arguments.
Background image of page 4
Admin Stuff: Clickers The grading structure is designed with some slack in it to allow you to miss class occasionally when something important is happening. (to forget your clicker once in a while, etc.)
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Admin Stuff: Clickers So, except in cases of long- term illness, etc., no makeups, no credit for when your clicker breaks, etc. Plan on the basis of the (very generous!) slack built in to the grading scheme.
Background image of page 6
Admin Stuff: Clickers Unfortunately necessary clarification: Clicking in for somebody who’s not here, or having somebody click in for you when you’re not here, is cheating. The minimum penalty is a zero on the clicker portion of the grades of everybody involved.
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Micro-Quiz
Background image of page 8
Micro-Quiz In “Puppies, Pigs and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases”, Alastair Norcross talks about the (imaginary) case of Fred, who tortures puppies in his basesment in order to produce a substance that allows him to enjoy the taste of chocolate.
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Micro-Quiz Norcross is using the case of Fred to make a point about: A) Animal experimentation. B) Eating chocolate. C) Eating factory-farmed meat. D) Pet ownership.
Background image of page 10
Two Kinds of Arguments for Dietary Restrictions Norcross’s argument Objections, and arguments from marginal cases Regan’s argument Inherent value, direct and indirect duties, rights vs. interests The contractarian objection, and marginal cases again Compare/contrast
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Norcross: The Case: Fred and the Puppies Norcross’s case.
Background image of page 12
Norcross: The Argument: Fred’s situation is just like ours. If it’s wrong for Fred to torture puppies so he can enjoy the taste of chocolate, then it’s also wrong for us to eat factory-farmed meat. Norcross’s argument by analogy. Got a controversial case, find a case where we’ve got clear judgments, and argue that the clear case is, in relevant respects, just like the controversial case. So we should be able to read the correct judgment in the controversial case o of our judgment about the clear case.
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Norcross: The Argument: Fred’s situation is just like ours. If it’s wrong for Fred to torture puppies so he can enjoy the taste of chocolate, then it’s also wrong for us to eat factory-farmed meat.
Background image of page 14
Image of page 15
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}