In the argument Norcross wrote about two different but similar stories to prove his point. In the first story a man was in an accident that had damaged his godiva gland, which means his body can no longer produce the hormone cocoamone and he can no longer taste chocolate. Knowing that humans do not produce cocoamone he finds out that puppies do when they are under intense stress and severe trauma. This man loves chocolate so much he abuses puppies to death so he can taste chocolate again. In the argument it’s clear that this mans life is not on the line if he cannot taste chocolate. He just wants to enjoy the taste of chocolate and he doesn’t seem to care that puppies are suffering for his pleasure. In the second story Norcross addresses factory raised meat that people purchase. Animals that are raised on a factory farm live in highly stressed, abusive, and cramped areas. He makes a clear point to people who would make the excuse of there one purchase making an affect. He proves to them that one out of ten thousand can safe 25 chickens lives. He clarifies that one person can start to make a difference. Norcross states in both of these situations people do not need these to …show more content…
Machan talks about the morality of natural rights and the utilitarian for animals. He states that the both can be mistaken by moral consideration and moral agents. To have rights you must be a moral agent which gives us liberty by doing right and wrong. Machan states that animals are not moral agents so they cannot have rights and liberties. Machan states that animals have no rights because they have no responsibilities, but he also states that just because they do not have any rights doesn’t mean they aren’t considerable. Animals are at a lower range and they have less importance than humans. Humans have rights because we live by morals and we have a sphere of personal