What does Norcrosss Freds Basement example aim to show?

Does it
succeed?

This essay will consider the intention behind Norcross Freds basement in showing
how he believes the practice of factory farming is morally impermissible. I will explain
the story of Freds basement, discuss how it is partially successful in its aim to show
how factory farming is morally wrong but how it fails to show continuity between
Fred's intentions and those of a farmer or consumer of factory farmed meat. This
essay will conclude that Norcross 'Fred's basement' ultimately fails in its aim to
show how the entire process of factory farming from the raising, to killing and lastly
consumption of animals is as morally impermissible as torturing puppies for personal
gain. In conclusion, I will consider Freds basement, Norcross views and the reality
of factory farming in relation to criticisms of closeness to the action, intention and the
doctrine of double effect.

Freds basement is an analogy used to show that it is morally impermissible to

produce factory farmed meat on the grounds of our inconsistent treatment of
animals, in this case farm animals and puppies (Norcross, 2004). In the story, Freds
basement is raided by police to discover mutilated puppies. Fred defends his
behaviour by explaining how an accident left him unable to produce the hormone
cocoamone, which enables you to appreciate chocolate. The reason why Fred was
killing puppies was because puppy brains can be stimulated by pain to produce
cocoamone. Fred believes his actions to be morally permissible because without
the ability to enjoy chocolate he does not live a fulfilled life. His options were to be
deprived of his favourite food or to sacrifice the lives of defenceless animals
(Norcross, 2004). When reading this analogy, the reaction is disgust, which is what
Norcross intended. This story is meant to reveal that we are like Fred for as long as
we produce factory farmed meat. Norcross uses Freds basement to illustrate the
inconsistent way in which we treat animals for our means. It raises the question that
if you would not mutilate the puppies as Fred did why would you eat factory farmed
meat? This is analogous in that abusing and killing animals, no matter what animal,
is morally impermissible. This creates a dilemma, for the sake of consistency if you
are involved in factory farmed meat then you must conclude that Freds torture of
puppies is morally permissible, and if you do not think Freds actions are acceptable
then you must stop eating factory farmed meat (Norcross, 2004). To accept one
version of abuse whilst rejecting the other is partisan as both animals deserve the
same level of sympathy and consideration.

Norcross argument is convincing but can be criticised. The story of Freds

basement is not consistent with our production and consumption of factory farmed
meat and therefore does not force us to decide between killing animals and being
vegetarian. Someone who eats factory farmed meat is not as culpable as someone
who raises and kills factory farmed animals. Someone who buys and takes drugs is
not morally or legally equivalent to someone producing and selling drugs. In the
same way, someone producing and selling factory farmed meat is not the same as
someone who buys said meat. They are different actions and hold different levels of
moral responsibility. For Norcross to argue that Freds torture of puppies is equal to
the same as someone who buys meat is unreasonable. Whilst Fred is fully
responsible for his cruelty towards puppies, much like the farmers are towards their
animals, and the drug dealer who makes drugs, the person who buys the meat or the
drugs is not responsible for farmers or drug dealers behaviour, they should not be
held accountable for it. You would not give a drug producer and drug taker the same
sentence so why would the farmer and the consumer be treated the same? The
reason why Freds basement is unsuccessful in enforcing consistency in how we
treat animals is because they are not describing the same situation. Whilst there is a
similarity between Fred and farmers, Norcross story does not represent the
consumer of factory farmed meat, or cocoamone, and therefore does not
successfully persuade the reader to reject factory farmed meat.

Norcross may respond to this critique by questioning the importance of this

distinction. If Freds basement does not represent the consumer of factory farmed
meat then expand the story to allow Fred to sell his Cocoamone to others. Is it
permissible to buy this product from Fred? For Norcross it is not. However, for the
sake of this essay question, the original Freds basement does not discuss selling
his product and the morality related to that sale and therefore it does not successfully
show continuity between factory farmed meat and torturing puppies. To change the
story to refute each critique makes Norcross argument weak. This could be a case
of a death by a thousand qualifications and so I will not consider expansions to the
original story within this essay.

Another discontinuity between Norcross Freds basement and the reality of factory
farmed meat is the intention behind the action. Fred is purposefully cruel to puppies
to achieve his means; his first intention is to be able to taste chocolate again and his
second is to deliberately cause great harm to animals to do so. With factory farmed
animals there is only one intention, to produce meat. No farmer intends to mutilate
the animals they sell, that is simply a regrettable and unintended side-effect.
Norcross might respond by saying that this is the same in both situations, but I must
insist that it is not. Intentions and side-effects are different things, Fred hurts puppies
to achieve cocoamone extraction, for he must cause them pain to get what he
wants. Whereas, the farmers do not have to cause the animals pain to produce
meat. This may sound like a contradiction, but the process of killing animals does not
have to be torturous. Whilst it can be painful in the case of factory farmed animals,
the distinction lies in the difference between intention and side-effect. For example,
following the rules of the doctrine of double effect and abortion, the intention could
be to save the life of a mother from an ectopic pregnancy and the unintended side-
effect is that the embryos life is ended (Foot, 1967). Norcross Freds basement is
meant to show how Freds mutilation of puppies is the same as it is for factory
farmed animals, and whilst it can be accepted that the pain they experience could be
the same, the thought process behind each act is very different and therefore it is
unsuccessful in showing continuity.

It has been established that eating factory farmed meat is not the same as producing
factory farmed meat, much like intending pain and having the side-effect of pain is
the not the same, but this does not equate to moral permissibility. Norcross might
respond by arguing that just because you did not abuse an animal first hand, or
intend to cause it pain, that does not mean your involvement in the process or your
unintentional cause of suffering is acceptable. However, once again this does not
solve the problem of Freds basement being unsuccessful in showing the torture of
puppies as the same as factory farmed animals. Whilst it can be accepted that there
are definite aspects of the meat industry which could be considered impermissible or
immoral, Norcross intention was to use Freds basement for the argument from
continuity to conclude factory farmed meat is immoral, but the two cases are not the
same and the question is not is Freds basement successful in condemning the
production, sale and purchase of factory farmed meat?.

To conclude, Norcross Freds basement aims to show that factory farming meat is
impermissible because of the discontinuity between our rejection of murdering
puppies for selfish reasons but acceptance of butchering farm animals for the same
reasons. Whilst there are similarities between these cases, for example, both
animals are put through unnecessary pain and both are used for the personal gain of
humans, there are important distinctions that mean Norcross argument against
factory farmed meat is unsuccessful for it is not a contingent and analogous
argument. Fred differs from the consumers of meat for their level of responsibility
and involvement in the impermissible act is not the same, and in terms of the
farmers and Fred, the abuse of animals on a farm could be considered a side-effect
rather than an intention. Whilst Fred intends for the puppies to feel pain to extract
cocoamone, Farmers intend to achieve a meat product and the pain they feel is
ultimately unintended. In terms of my opinion as to whether producing and eating
meat is morally wrong, I think a convincing argument comes from Elizabeth Harman,
the practice of causing animals unnecessary pain and mistreatment is morally
unacceptable, but the action of eating meat is not ethically wrong, it is simply a
morally permissible moral mistake (Harman, 2015).

Foot Philippa, 1967, Number 5, The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the
double effect, available at: http://pitt.edu/~mthompso/readings/foot.pdf, accessed on:
24th April 2017

Harman Elizabeth, 2015, Eating meat as a morally permissible moral mistake,

assessable at: http://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/documents/EatingMeat.pdf
accessed on: 24th April 2017

Norcross Alastair, 2004, Philosophical perspectives (18), Ethics puppies, pigs, and
people: eating meat and marginal cases, available at:
http://faculty.smu.edu/jkazez/animal%20rights/norcross-4.pdf accessed on: 24th
April 2017