PUPPIES, PIGS AND PEOPLE

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS 

Introduction to Philosophy First Paper:
Puppies, Pigs, and People

Purpose

The purpose of this assignment is to demonstrate your comprehension of an original piece of

moral philosophy.

Skills
This assignment will help you practice the following skills:

• Reading comprehension.

• Identifying the parts of an argument.

• Critiquing the force of an argument.

• Presenting a philosophical idea in writing.

Knowledge
This assignment will help you become familiar with the following content:

• Animal Ethics

• Logic

Task

In this paper you will be summarizing and explaining Alastair Norcross’s argument that it is

immoral for consumers eat the meat of factory-farmed animals.

Step One

Begin by describing the puppy torture story and its purpose in Alastair Norcross’s paper.

What is Fred doing and why? How is Fred supposedly analogous to your average

American meat eater? (2 paragraphs minimum,

20

points.)

Step Two

At the end of section 1, Norcross says “No decent person would even contemplate

torturing puppies merely to enhance a gustatory experience… If we are prepared to

condemn Fred for torturing puppies merely to enhance his gustatory experiences,

shouldn’t we similarly condemn the millions who purchase and consume factory-raised

meat? Are there any morally significant differences between Fred’s behavior and their

behavior?”

This can be paraphrased as the following premises:

1. What Fred is doing when he tortures puppies for his gustatory pleasure is

wrong.

2. If what Fred is doing when he tortures puppies for his gustatory pleasure is

wrong, then either what the average American meat eater does when they buy

factory farmed meat is wrong or there is some morally significant difference

between

Fred’s behavior and theirs.

At the end of section 2, Norcross says “I have been unable to discover any morally

relevant differences between the behavior of Fred, the puppy torturer, and the behavior

of the millions of people who purchase and consume factory-raised meat, at least those

who do so in the knowledge that the animals live lives of suffering and deprivation. If

morality demands that we not torture puppies merely to enhance our own eating

pleasure, morality also demands that we not support factory farming by purchasing

factory-raised meat.”

This can be paraphrased as the following premises:

3. Either what the average American meat eater does when they buy factory

farmed meat is wrong or there is some morally significant difference between

Fred’s behavior and theirs.

4. There are no morally significant differences between Fred’s behavior and the

behavior of the average American meat eater when they buy factory farmed meat.

And although he himself leaves his conclusion implicit, we can state it thus:

5. Therefore, what the average American meat eater does when they buy factory

farmed meat is wrong.

Put these premises and the conclusion into your paper as a deductively valid argument,

and explain what it means that the argument is valid. You have permission to copy

statements 1-5 verbatim without citing this prompt. (2 paragraphs, 20 points.)

This section depends on ideas in logic that we haven’t covered in-depth. So, all you need

to do in this section is to copy the argument consisting of 1-5 into your essay (keep the

numbers), and explain that the argument is valid since, if all of its premises are true,

then its conclusion must be true as well, and therefore, if we want to reject Norcross’s

conclusion, we must also reject one of his premises.

Step Three

Describe three of the possible differences between us and Fred that Norcross considers

in section 2 and explain how he dismisses each possibility as ingenuous or morally

irrelevant. (3 paragraphs, 30 points.)

Step Four

Although he himself does not endorse it, in section 4 Norcross introduces the idea he

calls “the rationality gambit” that says that humans possess a moral status superior to

that of animals because humans possess superior rationality (i.e. humans are much

smarter than animals). Norcross quotes Bonnie Steinbock, Mary Anne Warren, and Carl

Cohen defending this idea. In your own words, describe the reasons these philosophers

give for thinking that our superior rationality also gives us a moral status superior to that

of animals. (2 paragraphs minimum, 20 points.)

Step Five

Norcross claims that rationality is not the defining condition of moral worth. Explain

why. Be sure to mention marginal cases, the concepts of moral patienthood, moral

agenthood, their definitions, and which one applies to animals. (2 paragraphs minimum,

20 points.)

Step Six

Do you agree or disagree with Norcross’s conclusion that the vast majority of meat eaters

in America (and elsewhere) are no better than a puppy torturer? If you agree with him,

will this change what you eat and how you think of meat eaters? How so, and why or why

not? If you disagree with his conclusion then there must be something wrong with his

premises. Which of his premises would you reject and why? (1 paragraph minimum, 20

points.)

Criteria for Success

Your paper must be in double-spaced, professional 12-point font. The text must be left-aligned.

Give it an appropriate title and bold and/or underline the title. Make sure your name and date

are on it, but don’t put the name of the professor.

• Every step of the task is completed, and in the proper order.

• Every step is written primarily in your own words. You may quote Locke or Parfit, or any

of the course material, but if you do be sure to use proper attribution, and don’t go

overboard with it. You should not be citing or quoting outside sources.

• The paper does not contain any “filler,” i.e. sentences unrelated to the prompt or their

paragraph’s main idea.

• The paper has the proper typesetting spelling, grammar, paragraph structure and

editing.

Correctly following these criteria is worth 20 points.

Purpose

Skills

Knowledge

Task

Criteria for Success

Philosophical Perspectives, 18, Ethics, 2004

PUPPIES, PIGS, AND PEOPLE: EATING MEAT AND
MARGINAL CASES

Alastair Norcross

Rice University

1. Fred’s Basement

Consider the story of Fred, who receives a visit from the police one day.
They have been summoned by Fred’s neighbors, who have been disturbed by
strange sounds emanating from Fred’s basement. When they enter the basement
they are confronted by the following scene: Twenty-six small wire cages, each
containing a puppy, some whining, some whimpering, some howling. The
puppies range in age from newborn to about six months. Many of them show
signs of mutilation. Urine and feces cover the bottoms of the cages and the
basement floor. Fred explains that he keeps the puppies for twenty-six weeks,
and then butchers them while holding them upside-down. During their lives he
performs a series of mutilations on them, such as slicing off their noses and their
paws with a hot knife, all without any form of anesthesia. Except for the
mutilations, the puppies are never allowed out of the cages, which are barely
big enough to hold them at twenty-six weeks. The police are horrified, and
promptly charge Fred with animal abuse. As details of the case are publicized,
the public is outraged. Newspapers are flooded with letters demanding that Fred
be severely punished. There are calls for more severe penalties for animal abuse.
Fred is denounced as a vile sadist.

Finally, at his trial, Fred explains his behavior, and argues that he is
blameless and therefore deserves no punishment. He is, he explains, a great
lover of chocolate. A couple of years ago, he was involved in a car accident,
which resulted in some head trauma. Upon his release from hospital, having
apparently suffered no lasting ill effects, he visited his favorite restaurant and
ordered their famous rich dark chocolate mousse. Imagine his dismay when he
discovered that his experience of the mousse was a pale shadow of its former
self. The mousse tasted bland, slightly pleasant, but with none of the intense
chocolaty flavor he remembered so well. The waiter assured him that the recipe
was unchanged from the last time he had tasted it, just the day before his

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

230 / Alastair Norcross

accident. In some consternation, Fred rushed out to buy a bar of his favorite
Belgian chocolate. Again, he was dismayed to discover that his experience of the
chocolate was barely even pleasurable. Extensive investigation revealed that his
experience of other foods remained unaffected, but chocolate, in all its forms,
now tasted bland and insipid. Desperate for a solution to his problem, Fred
visited a renowned gustatory neurologist, Dr. T. Bud. Extensive tests revealed
that the accident had irreparably damaged the godiva gland, which secretes
cocoamone, the hormone responsible for the experience of chocolate. Fred
urgently requested hormone replacement therapy. Dr. Bud informed him that,
until recently, there had been no known source of cocoamone, other than the
human godiva gland, and that it was impossible to collect cocoamone from one
person to be used by another. However, a chance discovery had altered the
situation. A forensic veterinary surgeon, performing an autopsy on a severely
abused puppy, had discovered high concentrations of cocoamone in the puppy’s
brain. It turned out that puppies, who don’t normally produce cocoamone,
could be stimulated to do so by extended periods of severe stress and suffering.
The research, which led to this discovery, while gaining tenure for its authors,
had not been widely publicized, for fear of antagonizing animal welfare groups.
Although this research clearly gave Fred the hope of tasting chocolate again,
there were no commercially available sources of puppy-derived cocoamone. Lack
of demand, combined with fear of bad publicity, had deterred drug companies
from getting into the puppy torturing business. Fred appeals to the court to
imagine his anguish, on discovering that a solution to his severe deprivation
was possible, but not readily available. But he wasn’t inclined to sit around
bemoaning his cruel fate. He did what any chocolate lover would do. He read
the research, and set up his own cocoamone collection lab in his basement. Six
months of intense puppy suffering, followed by a brutal death, produced enough
cocoamone to last him a week, hence the twenty-six cages. He isn’t a sadist or an
animal abuser, he explains. If there were a method of collecting cocoamone
without torturing puppies, he would gladly employ it. He derives no pleasure
from the suffering of the puppies itself. He sympathizes with those who are
horrified by the pain and misery of the animals, but the court must realize that
human pleasure is at stake. The puppies, while undeniably cute, are mere animals.
He admits that he would be just as healthy without chocolate, if not more so. But
this isn’t a matter of survival or health. His life would be unacceptably impover-
ished without the experience of chocolate.

End of story. Clearly, we are horrified by Fred’s behavior, and unconvinced
by his attempted justification. It is, of course, unfortunate for Fred that he can
no longer enjoy the taste of chocolate, but that in no way excuses the imposition
of severe suffering on the puppies. I expect near universal agreement with this
claim (the exceptions being those who are either inhumanly callous or thinking
ahead, and wish to avoid the following conclusion, to which such agreement
commits them). No decent person would even contemplate torturing puppies
merely to enhance a gustatory experience. However, billions of animals endure

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 231

intense suffering every year for precisely this end. Most of the chicken, veal,
beef, and pork consumed in the US comes from intensive confinement facilities,
in which the animals live cramped, stress-filled lives and endure unanaesthetized
mutilations1. The vast majority of people would suffer no ill health from the
elimination of meat from their diets. Quite the reverse. The supposed benefits
from this system of factory farming, apart from the profits accruing to agribusi-
ness, are increased levels of gustatory pleasure for those who claim that they
couldn’t enjoy a meat-free diet as much as their current meat-filled diets. If we
are prepared to condemn Fred for torturing puppies merely to enhance his
gustatory experiences, shouldn’t we similarly condemn the millions who pur-
chase and consume factory-raised meat? Are there any morally significant
differences between Fred’s behavior and their behavior?

2. Fred’s Behavior Compared with Our Behavior

The first difference that might seem to be relevant is that Fred tortures the
puppies himself, whereas most Americans consume meat that comes from
animals that have been tortured by others. But is this really relevant? What if
Fred had been squeamish and had employed someone else to torture the puppies
and extract the cocoamone? Would we have thought any better of Fred? Of
course not.

Another difference between Fred and many consumers of factory-raised
meat is that many, perhaps most, such consumers are unaware of the treatment
of the animals, before they appear in neatly wrapped packages on supermarket
shelves. Perhaps I should moderate my challenge, then. If we are prepared to
condemn Fred for torturing puppies merely to enhance his gustatory experi?
ences, shouldn’t we similarly condemn those who purchase and consume
factory-raised meat, in full, or even partial, awareness of the suffering endured
by the animals? While many consumers are still blissfully ignorant of the
appalling treatment meted out to meat, that number is rapidly dwindling, thanks
to vigorous publicity campaigns waged by animal welfare groups. Furthermore,
any meat-eating readers of this article are now deprived of the excuse of
ignorance.

Perhaps a consumer of factory-raised animals could argue as follows: While
I agree that Fred’s behavior is abominable, mine is crucially different. If Fred
did not consume his chocolate, he would not raise and torture puppies (or pay
someone else to do so). Therefore Fred could prevent the suffering of the
puppies. However, if I did not buy and consume factory-raised meat, no animals
would be spared lives of misery. Agribusiness is much too large to respond to
the behavior of one consumer. Therefore I cannot prevent the suffering of any
animals. I may well regret the suffering inflicted on animals for the sake of
human enjoyment. I may even agree that the human enjoyment doesn’t justify
the suffering. However, since the animals will suffer no matter what I do, I may
as well enjoy the taste of their flesh.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

232 / Alastair Norcross

There are at least two lines of response to this attempted defense. First,
consider an analogous case. You visit a friend in an exotic location, say
Alabama. Your friend takes you out to eat at the finest restaurant in Tusca-
loosa. For dessert you select the house specialty, “Chocolate Mousse a la
Bama”, served with a small cup of coffee, which you are instructed to drink
before eating the mousse. The mousse is quite simply the most delicious dessert
you have ever tasted. Never before has chocolate tasted so rich and satisfying.
Tempted to order a second, you ask your friend what makes this mousse so
delicious. He informs you that the mousse itself is ordinary, but the coffee
contains a concentrated dose of cocoamone, the newly discovered chocolate-
enhancing hormone. Researchers at Auburn University have perfected a tech-
nique for extracting cocoamone from the brains of freshly slaughtered puppies,
who have been subjected to lives of pain and frustration. Each puppy’s brain
yields four doses, each of which is effective for about fifteen minutes, just long
enough to enjoy one serving of mousse. You are, naturally, horrified and
disgusted. You will certainly not order another serving, you tell your friend.
In fact, you are shocked that your friend, who had always seemed to be a
morally decent person, could have both recommended the dessert to you and
eaten one himself, in full awareness of the loathsome process necessary for the
experience. He agrees that the suffering of the puppies is outrageous, and that
the gain in human pleasure in no way justifies the appalling treatment they have
to endure. However, neither he nor you can save any puppies by refraining from
consuming cocoamone. Cocoamone production is now Alabama’s leading
industry, so it is much too large to respond to the behavior of one or two
consumers. Since the puppies will suffer no matter what either of you does, you
may as well enjoy the mousse.

If it is as obvious as it seems that a morally decent person, who is aware of
the details of cocoamone production, couldn’t order Chocolate Mousse a la
Bama, it should be equally obvious that a morally decent person, who is aware
of the details of factory farming, can’t purchase and consume factory-raised
meat. If the attempted excuse of causal impotence is compelling in the latter
case, it should be compelling in the former case. But it isn’t.

The second response to the claim of causal impotence is to deny it. Consider
the case of chickens, the most cruelly treated of all animals raised for human
consumption, with the possible exception of veal calves. In 1998, almost 8 billion
chickens were slaughtered in the US2, almost all of them raised on factory
farms. Suppose that there are 250 million chicken eaters in the US, and that
each one consumes, on average, 25 chickens per year (this leaves a fair number
of chickens slaughtered for nonhuman consumption, or for export). Clearly, if
only one of those chicken eaters gave up eating chicken, the industry would
not respond. Equally clearly, if they all gave up eating chicken, billions of
chickens (approximately 6.25 billion per year) would not be bred, tortured,
and killed. But there must also be some number of consumers, far short of
250 million, whose renunciation of chicken would cause the industry to reduce

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 233

the number of chickens bred in factory farms. The industry may not be able to
respond to each individual’s behavior, but it must respond to the behavior of
fairly large numbers. Suppose that the industry is sensitive to a reduction in
demand for chicken equivalent to 10,000 people becoming vegetarians. (This
seems like a reasonable guess, but I have no idea what the actual numbers
are, nor is it important.) For each group of 10,000 who give up chicken, a
quarter of a million fewer chickens are bred per year. It appears, then, that if
you give up eating chicken, you have only a one in ten thousand chance of
making any difference to the lives of chickens, unless it is certain that fewer than
10,000 people will ever give up eating chicken, in which case you have no
chance. Isn’t a one in ten thousand chance small enough to render your con-
tinued consumption of chicken blameless? Not at all. While the chance that your
behavior is harmful may be small, the harm that is risked is enormous. The
larger the numbers needed to make a difference to chicken production, the
larger the difference such numbers would make. A one in ten thousand chance
of saving 250,000 chickens per year from excruciating lives is morally and
mathematically equivalent to the certainty of saving 25 chickens per year. We
commonly accept that even small risks of great harms are unacceptable. That is
why we disapprove of parents who fail to secure their children in car seats or
with seat belts, who leave their small children unattended at home, or who drink
or smoke heavily during pregnancy. Or consider commercial aircraft safety
measures. The chances that the oxygen masks, the lifejackets, or the emergency
exits on any given plane will be called on to save any lives in a given week, are
far smaller than one in ten thousand. And yet we would be outraged to discover
that an airline had knowingly allowed a plane to fly for a week with non-
functioning emergency exits, oxygen masks, and lifejackets. So, even if it is
true that your giving up factory raised chicken has only a tiny chance of
preventing suffering, given that the amount of suffering that would be prevented
is in inverse proportion to your chance of preventing it, your continued con?
sumption is not thereby excused.

But perhaps it is not even true that your giving up chicken has only a tiny
chance of making any difference. Suppose again that the poultry industry only
reduces production when a threshold of 10,000 fresh vegetarians is reached.
Suppose also, as is almost certainly true, that vegetarianism is growing in
popularity in the US (and elsewhere). Then, even if you are not the one, newly
converted vegetarian, to reach the next threshold of 10,000, your conversion will
reduce the time required before the next threshold is reached. The sooner the
threshold is reached, the sooner production, and therefore animal suffering, is
reduced. Your behavior, therefore, does make a difference. Furthermore, many
people who become vegetarians influence others to become vegetarian, who in
turn influence others, and so on. It appears, then, that the claim of causal
impotence is mere wishful thinking, on the part of those meat lovers who are
morally sensitive enough to realize that human gustatory pleasure does not
justify inflicting extreme suffering on animals.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

234 / Alastair Norcross

Perhaps there is a further difference between the treatment of Fred’s pup?
pies and the treatment of animals on factory farms. The suffering of the puppies
is a necessary means to the production of gustatory pleasure, whereas the
suffering of animals on factory farms is simply a by-product of the conditions
dictated by economic considerations. Therefore, it might be argued, the suffer?
ing of the puppies is intended as a means to Fred’s pleasure, whereas the
suffering of factory raised animals is merely foreseen as a side-effect ofa system
that is a means to the gustatory pleasures of millions. The distinction between
what is intended, either as a means or as an end in itself, and what is ‘merely’
foreseen is central to the Doctrine of Double Effect. Supporters of this doctrine
claim that it is sometimes permissible to bring about an effect that is merely
foreseen, even though the very same effect could not permissibly be brought
about if intended. (Other conditions have to be met in order for the Doctrine of
Double Effect to judge an action permissible, most notably that there be an
outweighing good effect.) Fred acts impermissibly, according to this line of
argument, because he intends the suffering of the puppies as a means to his
pleasure. Most meat eaters, on the other hand, even if aware of the suffering of
the animals, do not intend the suffering.

In response to this line of argument, I could remind the reader that Samuel
Johnson said, or should have said, that the Doctrine of Double Effect is the last
refuge ofa scoundrel3.1 won’t do that, however, since neither the doctrine itself,
nor the alleged moral distinction between intending and foreseeing can justify
the consumption of factory-raised meat. The Doctrine of Double Effect requires
not merely that a bad effect be foreseen and not intended, but also that there be
an outweighing good effect. In the case of the suffering of factory-raised ani?
mals, whatever good could plausibly be claimed to come out of the system
clearly doesn’t outweigh the bad. Furthermore, it would be easy to modify the
story of Fred to render the puppies’ suffering ‘merely’ foreseen. For example,
suppose that the cocoamone is produced by a chemical reaction that can only
occur when large quantities of drain-cleaner are forced down the throat of a
conscious, unanaesthetized puppy. The consequent appalling suffering, while
not itself a means to the production of cocoamone, is nonetheless an unavoid-
able side-effect of the means. In this variation of the story, Fred’s behavior is no
less abominable than in the original.

One last difference between the behavior of Fred and the behavior of the

consumers of factory-raised meat is worth discussing, if only because it is so
frequently cited in response to the arguments of this paper. Fred’s behavior is
abominable, according to this line of thinking, because it involves the suffering of
puppies. The behavior of meat-eaters, on the other hand, ‘merely’ involves the
suffering of chickens, pigs, cows, calves, sheep, and the like. Puppies (and probably
dogs and eats in general) are morally different from the other animals. Puppies count
(morally, that is), whereas the other animals don’t, or at least not nearly as much.

So, what gives puppies a higher moral status than the animals we eat?
Presumably there is some morally relevant property or properties possessed by

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 235

puppies but not by farm animals. Perhaps puppies have a greater degree of
rationality than farm animals, or a more finely developed moral sense, or at
least a sense of loyalty and devotion. The problems with this kind of approach
are obvious. It’s highly unlikely that any property that has even an outside
chance of being ethically relevant4 is both possessed by puppies and not pos-
sessed by any farm animals. For example, it’s probably true that most puppies
have a greater degree of rationality (whatever that means) than most chickens,
but the comparison with pigs is far more dubious. Besides, if Fred were to
inform the jury that he had taken pains to acquire particularly stupid, morally
obtuse, disloyal and undevoted puppies, would they (or we) have declared his
behavior to be morally acceptable? Clearly not. This is, of course, simply the
puppy version of the problem of marginal cases (which I will discuss later). The
human version is no less relevant. If their lack of certain degrees of rationality,
moral sensibility, loyalty, devotion, and the like makes it permissible to torture
farm animals for our gustatory pleasure, it should be permissible to do the same
to those unfortunate humans who also lack those properties. Since the latter
behavior isn’t permissible, the lack of such properties doesn’t justify the former
behavior.

Perhaps, though, there is something that separates puppies, even marginal
puppies (and marginal humans) from farm animals?our sympathy. Puppies
count more than other animals, because we care more about them. We are
outraged to hear of puppies abused in scientific experiments, but unconcerned
at the treatment of laboratory rats or animals on factory farms. Before the 2002
World Cup, several members of the England team sent a letter to the govern-
ment of South Korea protesting the treatment of dogs and eats raised for food
in that country. The same players have not protested the treatment of animals
on factory farms in England. This example, while clearly illustrating the differ?
ence in attitudes towards eats and dogs on the one hand, and farm animals on
the other, also reveals one of the problems with this approach to the question of
moral status. Although the English footballers, and the English (and US) “ptiblic
in general, clearly care far more about the treatment of eats and dogs than of
farm animals, the South Koreans, just as clearly, do not. Are we to conclude
that Fred’s behavior would not be abominable were he living in South Korea,
where dogs and eats are routinely abused for the sake of gustatory pleasure?
Such relativism is, to put it mildly, hard to swallow. Perhaps, though, we can
maintain the view that human feelings determine the moral status of animals,
without condoning the treatment of dogs and eats in South Korea (and other
countries). Not all human feelings count. Only the feelings of those who have
achieved exactly the right degree of moral sensibility. That just so happens to be
those in countries like the US and Britain who care deeply for the welfare of
dogs and eats, but not particularly for the welfare of cows, chickens, pigs, and
other factory-raised animals. Dog and cat eaters in South Korea are insuffi-
ciently sensitive, and humane farming advocates in Britain and the US are
overly so. But, of course, it won’t do simply to insist that this is the right degree

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

236 / Alastair Norcross

of moral sensibility. We need an explanation of why this is the right degree of
sensibility. Moral sensibility consists, at least in part, in reacting differently to
different features of situations, actions, agents, and patients. If the right degree
of moral sensibility requires reacting differently to puppies and to farm animals,
there must be a morally relevant difference between puppies and farm animals.
Such a difference can’t simply consist in the fact that (some) people do react
differently to them. The appeal to differential human sympathy illustrates a
purely descriptive psychological difference between the behavior of Fred and
that of someone who knowingly consumes factory-raised meat. It can do no
serious moral work.

I have been unable to discover any morally relevant differences between the
behavior of Fred, the puppy torturer, and the behavior of the millions of people
who purchase and consume factory-raised meat, at least those who do so in the
knowledge that the animals live lives of suffering and deprivation. If morality
demands that we not torture puppies merely to enhance our own eating pleas?
ure, morality also demands that we not support factory farming by purchasing
factory-raised meat.

3. The Texan’s Challenge

Perhaps what I have said thus far is enough to convince many that the
purchase and consumption of factory-raised meat is immoral. It is clear that the
attribution of a different (and elevated) moral status to puppies from that
attributed to farm animals is unjustified. But, one philosopher’s modus ponens,
as they say, is another Texan’s modus tollens. Here is the modus ponens I have
been urging:

(1) If it’s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, it’s wrong to
support factory farming.

(2) It is wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure.
(3) Therefore it’s wrong to support factory farming.

But some may be so convinced that supporting factory farming is not wrong
that they may substitute that conviction for the second premise, and conclude
that it is not wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure. Thus we are
confronted with the Texan’s modus tollens:

(Tl) If it’s wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure, then it’s wrong
to support factory farming.

(T2) It’s not wrong to support factory farming.
(T3) Therefore it’s not wrong to torture puppies for gustatory pleasure.

I’m not saying that there is a large risk that many people, even Texans, will start
breeding puppies for food (outside of those countries where it is already

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 237

accepted practice). 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 senti-
mental preference, as opposed to a morally mandated choice. They may claim,
in a somewhat Kantian spirit, that someone who can treat puppies like that may
be more likely to mistreat humans. They may agree that all animals deserve
equal consideration of their interests. 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.
If the former, they could claim that morality mandates minimal standards of
conduct, but that nothing prevents us from choosing to go beyond the require-
ments of morality when we feel like it. If the latter, they could claim that their
sentimental attachment to puppies, kittens, and the like, makes it in their own
interests not to raise and kill them for food. Nonetheless, they may insist, in
terms of moral status, there is a clear difference between humans and other
animals. Humans have a moral status so far above that of other animals that we

couldn’t even consider raising humans for food (even humanely), or experiment-
ing on them without their consent, even though we routinely do such things to
other animals.

4. Humans9 versus Animals9 Ethical Status?The Rationality Gambit

For the purposes of this discussion, to claim that humans have a superior
ethical status to animals is to claim that it is morally right to give the interests of
humans greater weight than those of animals in deciding how to behave. Such
claims will often be couched in terms of rights, such as the rights to life, liberty
or respect, but nothing turns on this terminological matter. One may claim that
it is generally wrong to kill humans, but not animals, because humans are
rational, and animals are not. Or one may claim that the suffering of animals
counts less than the suffering of humans (if at all), because humans are rational,
and animals are not. These claims may proceed through the intermediate claim
that the rights of humans are more extensive and stronger than those (if any) of
animals. Alternatively, one may directly ground the judgment about the moral
status of certain types of behavior in claims about the alleged natural properties
of the individuals involved. Much of the debate over the moral status of

abortion proceeds along these lines. Many opponents of abortion appeal to
features that fetuses have in common with adult humans, in order to argue that
it is, at least usually, just as seriously wrong to kill them as it is to kill us. For
example, John Noonan claims that it is the possession of a full human genetic
code that grounds the attribution to fetuses of this exalted ethical status. Such
an argument may, but doesn’t have to, proceed through the intermediate claim
that anything that possesses a full human genetic code has a right to life. Many
proponents of the moral permissibility of abortion, on the other hand, claim
features such as self-consciousness or linguistic ability as necessary conditions of
full moral status, and thus deny such status to fetuses.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

238 / Alastair Norcross

What could ground the claim of superior moral status for humans? Just as
the defender ofa higher moral status for puppies than for farm animals needs to
find some property or properties possessed by puppies but not by farm animals,
so the defender of a higher moral status for humans need to find some property
or properties possessed by humans but not by other animals. The traditional
view, dating back at least to Aristotle, is that rationality is what separates
humans, both morally and metaphysically, from other animals. With a greater
understanding of the cognitive powers of some animals, recent philosophers
have often refined the claim to stress the kind and level of rationality required
for moral reasoning. Let’s start with a representative sample of three. Consider
first these claims of Bonnie Steinbock:

While we are not compelled to discriminate among people because of different
capacities, if we can find a significant difference in capacities between human
and non-human animals, this could serve to justify regarding human interests as
primary. It is not arbitrary or smug, I think, to maintain that human beings
have a different moral status from members of other species because of certain
capacities which are characteristic of being human. We may not all be equal in
these capacities, but all human beings possess them to some measure, and non-
human animals do not. For example, human beings are normally held to be
responsible for what they do….Secondly, human beings can be expected to
reciprocate in a way that non-human animals cannot…Thirdly,…there is the
kdesire for self-respect’.5

Similarly, Mary Anne Warren argues that “the rights of persons are generally
stronger than those of sentient beings which are not persons”. Her main premise
to support this conclusion is the following:

[T]here is one difference [between human and non-human nature] which has a
clear moral relevance: people are at least sometimes capable of being moved to
action or inaction by the force of reasoned argument.6

Carl Cohen, one of the most vehement modern defenders of what Peter Singer
calls ‘speciesism’ states his position as follows:

Between species of animate life, however?between (for example) humans on
the one hand and eats or rats on the other?the morally relevant differences are
enormous, and almost universally appreciated. Humans engage in moral reflec?
tion; humans are morally autonomous; humans are members of moral commun-
ities, recognizing just claims against their own interest. Human beings do have
rights, theirs is a moral status very different from that of eats or rats.7

So, the claim is that human interests and/or rights are stronger or more
important than those of animals, because humans possess a kind and level of
rationality not possessed by animals. How much of our current behavior

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 239

towards animals this justifies depends on just how much consideration should be
given to animal interests, and on what rights, if any, they possess. Both Stein-
bock and Warren stress that animal interests need to be taken seriously into
account. Warren claims that animals have important rights, but not as impor?
tant as human rights. Cohen, on the other hand, argues that we should actually
increase our use of animals.

5. The Challenge of Marginal Cases

One of the most serious challenges to this defense of the traditional view
involves a consideration of what philosophers refer to as ‘marginal cases’.
Whatever kind and level of rationality is selected as justifying the attribution
of superior moral status to humans will either be lacking in some humans or
present in some animals. To take one of the most commonly-suggested features,
many humans are incapable of engaging in moral reflection. For some, this
incapacity is temporary, as is the case with infants, or the temporarily cogni?
tively disabled. Others who once had the capacity may have permanently lost it,
as is the case with the severely senile or the irreversibly comatose. Still others
never had and never will have the capacity, as is the case with the severely
mentally disabled. If we base our claims for the moral superiority of humans
over animals on the attribution of such capacities, won’t we have to exclude
many humans? Won’t we then be forced to the claim that there is at least as
much moral reason to use cognitively deficient humans in experiments and for
food as to use animals? Perhaps we could exclude the only temporarily disabled,
on the grounds of potentiality, though that move has its own problems. None?
theless, the other two categories would be vulnerable to this objection.

I will consider two lines of response to the argument from marginal cases.
The first denies that we have to attribute different moral status to marginal
humans, but maintains that we are, nonetheless, justified in attributing different
moral status to animals who are just as cognitively sophisticated as marginal
humans, if not more so. The second admits that, strictly speaking, marginal
humans are morally inferior to other humans, but proceeds to claim pragmatic
reasons for treating them, at least usually, as if they had equal status.

As representatives of the first line of defense, I will consider arguments from

three philosophers, Carl Cohen, Alan White, and David Schmidtz. First, Cohen:

[the argument from marginal cases] fails; it mistakenly treats an essential feature
of humanity as though it were a screen for sorting humans. The capacity for
moral judgment that distinguishes humans from animals is not a test to be
administered to human beings one by one. Persons who are unable, because of
some disability, to perform the full moral functions natural to human beings are
certainly not for that reason ejected from the moral community. The issue is one
of kind…What humans retain when disabled, animals have never had.8

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

————————————————————– You can skip this section.

240 / Alastair Norcross

Alan White argues that animals don’t have rights, on the grounds that they
cannot intelligibly be spoken of in the full language ofa right. By this he means that
they cannot, for example, claim, demand, assert, insist on, secure, waive, or surrender

a right. This is what he has to say in response to the argument from marginal cases:

Nor does this, as some contend, exclude infants, children, the feeble-minded, the
comatose, the dead, or generations yet unborn. Any of these may be for various
reasons empirically unable to fulfill the full role of right-holder. But…they are
logically possible subjects of rights to whom the full language of rights can
significantly, however falsely, be used. It is a misfortune, not a tautology, that
these persons cannot exercise or enjoy, claim, or waive, their rights or do their
duty or fulfil their obligations.9

David Schmidtz defends the appeal to typical characteristics of species, such
as mice, chimpanzees, and humans, in making decisions on the use of different
species in experiments. He also considers the argument from marginal cases:

Of course, some chimpanzees lack the characteristic features in virtue of which
chimpanzees command respect as a species, just as some humans lack the
characteristic features in virtue of which humans command respect as a species.
It is equally obvious that some chimpanzees have cognitive capacities (for
example) that are superior to the cognitive capacities of some humans. But
whether every human being is superior to every chimpanzee is beside the point.
The point is that we can, we do, and we should make decisions on the basis of
our recognition that mice, chimpanzees, and humans are relevantly different
types. We can have it both ways after all. Or so a speciesist could argue.10

There is something deeply troublesome about the line of argument that runs
through all three of these responses to the argument from marginal cases. A
particular feature, or set of features is claimed to have so much moral signifi?
cance that its presence or lack can make the difference to whether a piece of
behavior is morally justified or morally outrageous. But then it is claimed that
the presence or lack of the feature in any particular case is not important. The
relevant question is whether the presence or lack of the feature is normal. Such
an argument would seem perfectly preposterous in most other cases. Suppose,
for example, that ten famous people are on trial in the afterlife for crimes against
humanity. On the basis of conclusive evidence, five are found guilty and five are
found not guilty. Four of the guilty are sentenced to an eternity of torment, and
one is granted an eternity of bliss. Four of the innocent are granted an eternity
of bliss, and one is sentenced to an eternity of torment. The one innocent who is
sentenced to torment asks why he, and not the fifth guilty person, must go to
hell. Saint Peter replies, “Isn’t it obvious Mr. Ghandi? You are male. The other
four men?Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, George W. Bush, and Richard
Nixon?are all guilty. Therefore the normal condition for a male defendant
in this trial is guilt. The fact that you happen to be innocent is irrelevant.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 241

Likewise, of the five female defendants in this trial, only one was guilty.
Therefore the normal condition for female defendants in this trial is innocence.

That is why Margaret Thatcher gets to go to heaven instead of you.”
As I said, such an argument is preposterous. Is the reply to the argument

from marginal cases any better? Perhaps it will be claimed that a biological
category such as a species is more ‘natural’, whatever that means, than a
category like ‘all the male (or female) defendants in this trial’. Even setting
aside the not inconsiderable worries about the conventionality of biological
categories, it is not at all clear why this distinction should be morally relevant.
What if it turned out that there were statistically relevant differences in the
mental abilities of men and women? Suppose that men were, on average, more
skilled at manipulating numbers than women, and that women were, on aver?
age, more empathetic than men. Would such differences in what was ‘normal’
for men and women justify us in preferring an innumerate man to a female
math genius for a job as an accountant, or an insensitive woman to an ultra-
sympathetic man for a job as a counselor? I take it that the biological distinc?
tion between male and female is just as real as that between human and
chimpanzee.

A second response to the argument from marginal cases is to concede that
cognitively deficient humans really do have an inferior moral status to normal
humans. Can we, then, use such humans as we do animals? I know of no-one
who takes the further step of advocating the use of marginal humans for food
(though R.G. Frey has made some suggestive remarks concerning experi-
mentation). How can we advocate this second response while blocking the
further step? Warren suggests that “there are powerful practical and emotional
reasons for protecting non-rational human beings, reasons which are absent in
the case of most non-human animals.”11 It would clearly outrage common
human sensibilities, if we were to raise retarded children for food or medical
experiments.12 Here is Steinbock in a similar vein:

I doubt that anyone will be able to come up with a concrete and morally
relevant difference that would justify, say, using a chimpanzee in an experiment
rather than a human being with less capacity for reasoning, moral responsibil?
ity, etc. Should we then experiment on the severely retarded? Utilitarian con?
siderations aside, we feel a special obligation to care for the handicapped
members of our own species, who cannot survive in this world without such
care….In addition, when we consider the severely retarded, we think, ‘That
could be me’. It makes sense to think that one might have been born retarded,
but not to think that one might have been born a monkey….Here we are getting
away from such things as ‘morally relevant differences’ and are talking about
something much more difficult to articulate, namely, the role of feeling and
sentiment in moral thinking.13

This line of response clearly won’t satisfy those who think that marginal humans
really do deserve equal moral consideration with other humans. It is also a very

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

242 / Alastair Norcross

shaky basis on which to justify our current practices. What outrages human
sensibilities is a very fragile thing. Human history is littered with examples of
widespread acceptance of the systematic mistreatment of some groups who
didn’t generate any sympathetic response from others. That we do feel a kind
of sympathy for retarded humans that we don’t feel for dogs is, if true, a
contingent matter. To see just how shaky a basis this is for protecting retarded
humans, imagine that a new kind of birth defect (perhaps associated with beef
from cows treated with bovine growth hormone) produces severe mental retar-
dation, green skin, and a complete lack of emotional bond between parents and
child. Furthermore, suppose that the mental retardation is of the same kind and
severity as that caused by other birth defects that don’t have the other two
effects. It seems likely that denying moral status to such defective humans would
not run the same risks of outraging human sensibilities as would the denial of
moral status to other, less easily distinguished and more loved defective humans.
Would these contingent empirical differences between our reactions to different
sources of mental retardation justify us in ascribing different direct moral status
to their subjects? The only difference between them is skin color and whether
they are loved by others. Any theory that could ascribe moral relevance to
differences such as these doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously.14

Finally, perhaps we could claim that the practice of giving greater weight to
the interests of all humans than of animals is justified on evolutionary grounds.
Perhaps such differential concern has survival value for the species. Something
like this may well be true, but it is hard to see the moral relevance. We can
hardly justify the privileging of human interests over animal interests on the
grounds that such privileging serves human interests!

6. Agent and Patient?the Speciesist’s Central Confusion

Although the argument from marginal cases certainly poses a formidable
challenge to any proposed criterion of full moral standing that excludes animals,
it doesn’t, in my view, constitute the most serious flaw in such attempts to justify
the status quo. The proposed criteria are all variations on the Aristotelian
criterion of rationality. But what is the moral relevance of rationality? Why
should we think that the possession of a certain level or kind of rationality
renders the possessor’s interests of greater moral significance than those of a
merely sentient being? In Bentham’s famous words “The question is not, Can
they reason? nor Can they talk? But, Can they suffer?”.15

What do defenders of the alleged superiority of human interests say in
response to Bentham’s challenge? Some, such as Carl Cohen, simply reiterate
the differences between humans and animals that they claim to carry moral
significance. Animals are not members of moral communities, they don’t engage
in moral reflection, they can’t be moved by moral reasons. therefore (?) their
interests don’t count as much as ours. Others. such as Steinbock and Warren.

attempt to go further. Here is Warren on the subject:

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 243

Why is rationality morally relevant? It does not make us “better” than other
animals or more “perfect”….But it is morally relevant insofar as it provides
greater possibilities for cooperation and for the nonviolent resolution of prob?
lems.16

Warren is certainly correct in claiming that a certain level and kind of
rationality is morally relevant. Where she, and others who give similar argu?
ments, go wrong is in specifying what the moral relevance amounts to. If a being
is incapable of moral reasoning, at even the most basic level, if it is incapable of
being moved by moral reasons, claims, or arguments, then it cannot be a moral
agent. It cannot be subject to moral obligations, to moral praise or blame.
Punishing a dog for doing something “wrong” is no more than an attempt to
alter its future behavior. So long as we are undeceived about the dog’s cognitive
capacities, we are not, except metaphorically, expressing any moral judgment
about the dog’s behavior. (We may, of course, be expressing a moral judgment
about the behavior of the dog’s owner, who didn’t train it very well.) All this is
well and good, but what is the significance for the question of what weight to
give to animal interests? That animals can’t be moral agents doesn’t seem to be
relevant to their status as moral patients. Many, perhaps most, humans are both
moral agents and patients. Most, perhaps all, animals are only moral patients.
Why would the lack of moral agency give them diminished status as moral
patients? Full status as a moral patient is not some kind of reward for moral
agency. I have heard students complain in this regard that it is unfair that
humans bear the burdens of moral responsibility, and don’t get enhanced
consideration of their interests in return. This is a very strange claim. Humans
are subject to moral obligations, because they are the kind of creatures who can
be. What grounds moral agency is simply different from what grounds moral
standing as a patient. It is no more unfair that humans and not animals are
moral agents, than it is unfair that real animals and not stuffed toys are moral
patients.

One other attempt to justify the selection of rationality as the criterion of
full moral standing is worth considering. Recall the suggestion that rationality is
important insofar as it facilitates cooperation. If we view the essence of morality
as reciprocity, the significance of rationality is obvious. A certain twisted, but
all-too-common, interpretation of the Golden Rule is that we should ‘do unto
others in order to get them to do unto us’. There’s no point, according to this
approach, in giving much, if any, consideration to the interests of animals,
because they are simply incapable of giving like consideration to our interests.
In discussing the morality of eating meat, I have, many times, heard students
claim that we are justified in eating meat, because “the animals would eat us, if
given half a chance”. (That they say this in regard to our practice of eating cows
and chickens is depressing testimony to their knowledge of the animals they
gobble up with such gusto.) Inasmuch as there is a consistent view being
expressed here at all, it concerns self-interest, as opposed to morality. Whether

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

244 / Alastair Norcross

it serves my interests to give the same weight to the interests of animals as to
those of humans is an interesting question, but it is not the same question as
whether it is right to give animals’ interests equal weight. The same point, of
course, applies to the question of whether to give equal weight to my interests,
or those of my family, race, sex, religion, etc. as to those of other people.

Perhaps it will be objected that I am being unfair to the suggestion that the
essence of morality is reciprocity. Reciprocity is important, not because it serves
my interests, but because it serves the interests of all. Reciprocity facilitates
cooperation, which in turn produces benefits for all. What we should say about
this depends on the scope of ‘all’. If it includes all sentient beings, then the
significance of animals’ inability to reciprocate is in what it tells us about how to
give their interests equal consideration. It certainly can’t tell us that we should
give less, or no, consideration to their interests. If, on the other hand, we claim
that rationality is important for reciprocity, which is important for cooperation,
which is important for benefiting humans, which is the ultimate goal of moral?
ity, we have clearly begged the question against giving equal consideration to the
interests of animals.

It seems that any attempt to justify the claim that humans have a higher
moral status than other animals by appealing to some version of rationality as
the morally relevant difference between humans and animals will fail on at least
two counts. It will fail to give an adequate answer to the argument from
marginal cases, and, more importantly, it will fail to make the case that such a
difference is morally relevant to the status of animals as moral patients as
opposed to their status as moral agents.

I conclude that our intuitions that Fred’s behavior is morally impermissible
are accurate. Furthermore, given that the behavior of those who knowingly
support factory farming is morally indistinguishable, it follows that their behav?
ior is also morally impermissible.17

Notes

1. For information on factory farms, see, for example, Jim Mason and Peter
Singer, Animal Factories, 2d ed. (New York: Harmony Books, 1990), Karen
Davis, Prisoned Chickens, Poisoned Eggs: An Inside Look at the Modern Poultry
Industry (Summertown, TN: Book Publishing Co., 1996), John Robbins, Diet
for a New America (Walpole, NH: Stillpoint, 1987).

2. Livestock Slaughter 1998 Summary, NASS, USDA (Washington, D.C.: March
1999), 2; and Poultry Slaughter, NASS, USDA (Washington, D.C.: February 2,
1999), lf.

3. For a fine critique of the Doctrine of Double Effect, see Jonathan Bennett, The
Act Itself, (Oxford 1995), ch. 11.

4. If someone were to assert that ‘puppyishness’ or simply ‘being a puppy’ were
ethically relevant, I could do no more than favor them with an incredulous stare.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Puppies, Pigs, and People / 245

5. Bonnie Steinbock, “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality”, Philosophy 53, no. 204
(April 1978). Reprinted in Contemporary Moral Problems, 5th edition, James E.
White (ed.) (West, 1997) 467-468.

6. Mary Anne Warren, “Difficulties with the Strong Animal Rights Position”,
Between the Species 2, no. 4, 1987. Reprinted in Contemporary Moral Problems,
5th edition, James E. White (ed.) (West. 1997), 482.

7. Carl Cohen, “The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research”, The
New England Journal of Medecine, vol. 315, 1986. Reprinted in Social Ethics, 4th
edition, Thomas A. Mappes and Jane S. Zembaty, (eds.) (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1992) 463.

8. Cohen, Op. cit. 461.
9. Alan White, Rights, (OUP 1984). Reprinted in Animal Rights and Human

Obligations, 2nd edition, Tom Regan and Peter Singer (eds.) (Prentice Hall,
1989), 120.

10. David Schmidtz, “Are all Species Equal?”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 15,
no. 1 (1998), 61, my emphasis.

11. Warren, op. cit. 483.
12. For a similar argument, see Peter Carruthers, The Animals Issue: Moral Theory

in Practice. (Cambridge University Press, 1992.)
13. Steinbock, op. cit. 469^70.
14. Certain crude versions of the so-called ethics of care do seem to entail that the

mere fact of being loved gives a different ethical status.
15. Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,

(Various) chapter 17.
16. Warren, op. cit. 482.
17. This paper, in various forms, has been presented in more places than I can

remember, and has benefited from the comments of more people than I can
shake a stick at. I particularly wish to thank, for their helpful comments, Doug
Ehring, Mylan Engel, Mark Heller, and Steve Sverdlik.

This content downloaded from 129.171.178.63 on Fri, 07 Apr 2017 14:47:23 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

• Contents

p. [229]

p. 230

p. 231

p. 232

p. 233

p. 234

p. 235

p. 236

p. 237

p. 238

p. 239

p. 240

p. 241

p. 242

p. 243

p. 244

p. 245

• Issue Table of Contents

Philosophical Perspectives, Vol. 18 (2004) pp. i-vi+1-426

Front Matter [pp. i-vi]

‘All Things Considered’ [pp. 1-22]

Meta-Ethics and the Problem of Creeping
Minimalism [pp. 23-44]

Prankster’s Ethics [pp. 45-52]

The Wrongdoing That Gets Results [pp. 53-88]

Can We Harm and Benefit in Creating? [pp. 89-113]

The Force and Fairness of Blame [pp. 115-148]

The Return of Moral Fictionalism [pp. 149-187]

Silence and Responsibility [pp. 189-208]

Moral Knowledge by Perception [pp. 209-228]

Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal
Cases [pp. 229-245]

Six Theses about Pleasure [pp. 247-267]

The Role of Well-Being [pp. 269-294]

Skepticism about Moral Responsibility [pp. 295-313]

How to Be Responsible for Something without Causing
It [pp. 315-336]

The Scope of Instrumental Reason [pp. 337-364]

Hume on Practical Reason [pp. 365-389]

Indeterminacy, Ignorance and the Possibility of
Parity [pp. 391-403]

The Metaethicists’ Mistake [pp. 405-426]

Back Matter