Overview
Prompt:
Read the Story and do the Tasks. Paper should be 3 pages, single spaced, and in 12 point font. Length: up to 1300 words (and probably not much shorter than that).
For this assignment, you may not rely on any sources other than our 3 readings which have been attached below. You should assume that your reader has read the prompt, so don’t take space retelling the story
Two Pro Tips: (1) Do treat this more like a midterm than a free-form essay. We’re looking for clear answers to all of the questions—showing that you understand, and can apply and explain, the relevant arguments. It’s usually best to let your paper be structured by the order of the questions in the prompt. (2) Don’t spend too much time on the Final Question—maybe 250-300 words. It is the place where you give your own view—but the main point of the paper is for you to understand and explain a variety of arguments, not just the one you find most persuasive. Stay simple, precise, and don’t over explain or use close paraphrases.
Note: If a great job is done on this essay, I will be including an additional tip. Thank you!!!!! If a poor job is done, I will be requesting a refund.
The Story, Chapter 1:
You have been kidnapped by an experimental philosopher. He’s suspicious of what people say they’d do in making difficult moral choices, so he’s obtained funding to do research on real situations. Unfortunately, he’s gone a bit rogue, and departed from the experimental protocol he submitted to the Institutional Review Board: lacking sufficient volunteers, he’s resorted to kidnapping. You’re brought into a room from which you can see into three other rooms. In one there is Fluffy, a big-eyed kitten whose cuteness makes you feel all melty inside. In the second is Margie, a four-month-old human infant, whose mental capacities are a bit lower than Fluffy’s. You are not a big baby person—in fact, you find Margie kind of repulsive, and don’t feel instinctive sympathy for her. In the third room is Jocko, a man of ordinary human capacities.
There’s also a dial, with four settings: “Fluffy,” “Margie,” “Jocko,” and “All 3”; it’s currently set at “All 3.” The philosopher has intravenous lines hooked up to each of the individuals, and has arranged things so that the lines will deliver a certain chemical to the individual(s) indicated on the dial. The chemical will produce a moderately bad four-hour headache in any individual who receives it; the doses are designed so they will produce exactly the same amount of suffering in each individual, and there will be no lasting effects, either physical or psychological (if you have trouble imagining this, you may suppose that he’ll give the individuals a drug to prevent them from remembering their experiences). You may also assume that no one else will suffer as a result of the headache (perhaps no one else knows about the experiment).
Task 1:
You’re asked to set the dial. You decide right away that it would be wrong to leave it where it is—that would result in all three individuals getting headaches. But where to point it? You decide to make your decision based on the moral disvalue of the suffering that would result in each case. But how morally important is the suffering of these individuals? Fortunately, you have studied several philosophers’ views of just this question! So you begin to think through your choice. In order to think as clearly as possible, you decide to set the relevant arguments down on paper. In particular, you decide to address the following questions:
Bonnie Steinbock argues that the suffering of ordinary adult humans is more deplorable than the equal suffering of a non-human animal. One might think that, from her perspective, it would be better to give the headache to Fluffy than to Jocko. But the issues are complex. Explain how she would argue that the suffering of Jocko is more morally important than the suffering of Fluffy. (A key element here is how she argues from the greater value of Jocko’s life to the greater importance of Jocko’s suffering.) Then explain why one might think that her argument actually wouldn’t show that it was better to choose Fluffy over Jocko to receive the headache.
Steinbock would also argue that it’s morally OK to choose to give the headache to Fluffy rather than to Margie, as many people surely would. But what if you would personally prefer to give it to Margie? What would Steinbock say then?
Peter Carruthers would argue that it was clearly better to give the headache to Fluffy than to Jocko or Margie, because Fluffy’s suffering doesn’t matter at all morally! Many people would find this highly implausible. But Carruthers tries to show that, on his view, it would at least be wrong to torture Fluffy for fun. Why does he think it would be wrong to torture Fluffy for fun, even if Fluffy’s pain is not morally significant? (In answering this, you should not spend time explaining how Carruthers argues that Fluffy’s pain is insignificant—just concentrate on his explanation of why someone who tortured Fluffy for fun would still be subject to moral criticism. Also, don’t go into great detail about contractualism—just sketch the basic idea, and explain how Carruthers would use it to argue that torturing Fluffy for fun would be morally wrong.) Why might some think that Carruthers’ explanation doesn’t fully explain what’s wrong with torturing animals?
Story, Chapter 2:
As you sit there, reluctant to make any of the choices, the experimenter smiles evilly, and offers you one more option. He will let you go, and not give headaches to anyone—but only on one condition: that you consume a little pill he shows you. Its effect is simply that you will not derive any gustatory pleasure from your dinner tonight. You will be nourished just the same, but the food will have no taste or smell, so you’ll derive no pleasure in eating it. The pill will wear off by tomorrow morning. You think about the amount of suffering that the any of the experimental subjects would endure from the four-hour headaches, and realize that you can’t in good conscience give any of them such a headache just to preserve the pleasure of tonight’s meal. You take the pill and leave.
Trudging home through the cold rain, you’re relieved to be free, but a bit dejected about dinner. Well, maybe you can treat yourself to an extra-good dinner tomorrow to make up for it! Come to think of it, a half Peri-Peri chicken from Tribos would sure hit the spot! Just thinking about the crispy flame-grilled skin dripping with extra-spicy sauce makes you salivate.
Then a question occurs to you: You believe that the chicken served by Tribos, like almost all chicken in restaurants, is from factory farms. Would it be more morally acceptable for you to order factory-farmed chicken tomorrow than it would have been to turn the dial to “Fluffy” rather than taking the scientist’s pill? On the one hand, you know about the suffering involved in producing factory-farmed chicken. On the other, though, you’re just one person, and the chicken industry is huge—surely your own individual choices can’t change what the chicken industry will do! So maybe you might as well enjoy….
Task 2:
Norcross argues against that last thought of yours (that eating factory-farmed meat is OK because your choices have no effect on the meat industry). Explain one of the arguments he gives for rejecting this thought. (Norcross gives more than one argument, but here you only need to explain one of them. In thinking about this question, suppose that the suffering a factory-farmed chicken experiences over its life is many times greater than that produced by a four-hour moderately bad headache.)
Finally, do you think that ordering factory-farmed meat at a restaurant is morally acceptable? Briefly explain why or why not.