Why would the Doctrine of Double effect not necessarily bar the eating of meat?

  1. Why would the Doctrine of Double effect not necessarily bar the eating of meat?

A.Animals don’t have rights.

B.The suffering an animal might undergo is not necessary for meat to be eaten.

C.The good effect of eating meat is produced by means of the evil effect.

D.Factor farms are necessary for human survival.

2.What, according to Norcross, are Marginal cases?

A.Human beings who, for one reason or another, fall below some level of rationality or cognitive ability meant to set humans apart from other animals.

B.Cases where the eating of meat will bring about so much good, some amount of marginal suffering is acceptable.

C.Cases where the eating of meat is morally ambiguous, as when one kills an animal in self-defense, and chooses to eat the animal which attacked.

D.Animals which deserve greater rights than any human being.

3.Norcorss argues that claims of “natural” distinctions are a form of “speciesism,” which is meant to be similar to

A.Racism.

B.Sexism.

C.Ageism.

D.All of these choices.

4.Which of the following is an example of moral patient, but NOT a moral agent?

A.An adult human being with no cognitive disability of any kind.

B.A newborn baby.

C.A bicycle.

D.A mathematical formula.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We can help"

ORDER NOW

0 replies

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *