PHIL 2003C 1st Edition Lecture 24Outline of Last Lecture I: Test InformationOutline of Current LectureII: Fred StoryIII: Denying P1 and P2Current LectureII: Fred Story P1: Fred’s behavior is ridiculously unacceptableP2: There is no relevant difference between Fred’s behavior and the behavior of those of us who eat factory-farmed meatC1: So our behavior must be ridiculously unacceptable as wellIII: Denying P1 and P2Two Options:Deny P1: say that what Fred is doing is not ridiculously unacceptable Deny P2: Try to show that there is a relevant difference between Fred’s behavior and our behaviorSome attacks on P2:1.) Fred tortures the puppies himself; I never tortured a chicken I atea. But this doesn’t matter. Would you have thought any better of Fred if he had the torturing done by someone else, or by some machine?2.) Doesn’t it matter that most people are just totally unaware of the suffering of the animals they consume, while Fred is absolutely aware of the suffering of his puppies?These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.a. Well, even if it did, you know now3.) Doesn’t it matter that Fred can stop the suffering of the puppies (by destroying the lab), whereasI can’t do anything to stop the suffering of the farm animals (because my abstaining won’t make a dent in the industry)? a. Narcross has two responses: i. Chocolate Mousse a la Bama: Imagine you hace the local Tuscaloosa specialty, which includes a cocoamone( (from tortured puppy) laced coffee followed by chocolate mousse. Imagine further that the cocoamone industry in Alabama is seriously big. Will you keep eating the dessert?ii. It’s untrue that your decision is so impotent… however many chickens that you’ve eaten over the last year is how many chickens which could have been spared a miserable life had you not eaten them. 4.) Fred Intends the suffering of the puppies, whereas we meat eaters do not.a. Doctrine of Double Effect: It’s permissible to perform an action that has foreseeable harms, assuming you do not intend those harms, and assuming that there is an outweighing good to be gained by doing the actioni. Two obvious responses: 1. There is no outweighing good to be gained by the suffering of the farm animals5.) Puppies simply have higher moral worth than the other animals, so Fred’s behavior is way worse than us meat-eatersa. So does that mean that we can torture those puppies that happen not to possess the all-important property?So maybe we should consider denying P1? The main way, of course, is to say that humans are the only creatures with any rights- that animals are just out of luck. So it may sort of strike us as disgusting what Fred has done, but it’s not, strictly speaking,immoral. Two main responses to the problem of marginal cases:-Because the presence of whatever feature we pick (high rationality or whatever it is) is normal for our species, but not for any others. But what if the average male and female differ in their abilities in some way? Are we justified in discriminatory rules? Surely not. -Because it outrages human sensibility to think of our performing experiments on, say, the mentally handicapped in a way that it doesn’t outrage that sensibility when it’s a chimpanzeeFinal way to deny that his behavior is badP1: if x is a moral patient, then x is a moral agentP2: animals are clearly not moral agents (they eat and torture each other all the time and we don’t hold them morally responsible)C1: Then animals aren’t moral patients