Phil120W Lecture 3 – Notes















Moral status: a final verdict regarding the moral quality of something (e.g. an act
or policy).
Moral factor: any (true) fact relevant to an act’s (or policy’s) moral status.
Arguably, to call a person or policy “racist” is to make a moral claim
The point of Norcross’s example of Fred’s puppies is;
o To show that, by our own lights, we should be opposed to factory farming
His behaviour is
o Morally wrong. (And we as a society should prohibit/punish this type of
behaviour.)
Fred’s cocoamone operation causes puppies to experience intense and
prolonged suffering.
o However, Fred’s cocoamone operation allows Fred to experience
gustatory pleasure.
 This is Consequentialist (utilitarian)
Jeremy Bentham is the main historical Utilitarianist
o His Normative claim is what is morally right or wrong – he uses “Ought”
and “standard of right or wrong” to prove his point
 Principle of utility - The morality of an action is judged by the
pleasure it brings versus the pain it causes.
He’s saying that It shouldn’t matter about how many legs you have, fur on your
skin, etc.
Levels and ways to measure pleasure
o Intensity, Duration, Certainty/uncertainty, propinquity or remoteness,
fecundity, purity, extent (number of being affected)
 Ex. The intensity of enjoying a taco vs being in a loving relationship
Morally speaking - Intense suffering dwarfs gustatory pleasure
o F1 >> F2
 Ex. The intense suffering of animals in factory farming dwarfs our
gustatory pleasures
Factory farming animals is morally wrong
o The practice of factory farming animals is morally wrong
o Consuming factory-farmed animals is morally wrong
Depends on what specific act “x” refers to
o F1-farm. The practice of factory farming causes animals to experience
intense and prolonged suffering.
o F1-consume. Consuming factory-farmed meat causes animals to
experience intense and prolonged suffering.
Norcross argues that what we do makes a difference ^
Key Objection: (from quote)
o The “inefficacy objection” challenges Norcross’ conclusion about the
impact of individual consumption on animal welfare.
Reasoning Behind the Objection:













o Individual consumption decisions are unlikely to directly influence animal
suffering due to the complexity of supply chains.
Individual Benefit:
o Consuming animal products provides a positive effect for the individual,
even if it doesn’t impact overall production or suffering.
Flaw in Norcross’ Argument:
o Norcross underestimates the complexity of supply chains and the low
likelihood and magnitude of threshold effects, which diminishes the
expected impact of individual consumption on production.
Expected effect ≠ Average effect
o (Compare: average cost vs marginal cost)
Average Effect:
o When 10,000 people perform an action producing 1 million units of utility,
the average effect per person is 100 units.
Threshold Effect:
o If 10,000 is a required threshold, actions by fewer than 10,000 people
produce zero utility; only the 10,000th person has an effect (1 million
units).
Norcross Argument:
o Individual actions (e.g., giving up chicken) have a minimal chance of
making a difference unless exactly 9,999 others also act.
Budolfson’s Critique:
o The “average effect fallacy” misapplies average effects to threshold
situations, failing to account for the actual mechanics of supply chains.
A moral factor is a fact that is both true and morally relevant
Instead, the relevant comparison is that intense suffering and gustatory pleasure
> intense suffering ( look at the 10,000 people example)
(They’re going to suffer anyway, might as well get some pleasure out of it)
Now we are getting a new moral factor
o If F3 overrides F2, then it is wrong to consume factory-farmed meat.
In conclusion,
o The moral status of consuming factory-farmed meat
 Morally wrong
 Morally indecent; reflective of Bad moral character
 Morally permissible (not wrong).