What Is Norcross's Argument For Moral Reasoning?

To describe the story of the puppy torturer, it would start out as a regular guy who enjoyed the sweeter tastes in life, mainly chocolate. He would go to a familiar restaurant that always served his favorite dessert, dark chocolate mousse. One day however he suffered a car accident, he was rushed to the hospital and the doctors only suspected head trauma. After that whole scare, he wanted to go to his favorite restaurant and order the same dessert again. but this time however, the dessert tasted bleak, without flavor or any of the intense satisfaction of eating it. He asked the restaurant to see if the recipe for his favorite dessert had been altered, and the waiter reminded Fred that the recipe has not been changed and has been the same since
They contend that this ability elevates humans’ moral position above that of animals. However, Norcross claims that this viewpoint is incorrect because it is founded on a wrong premise. He contends that there is no reason to suppose that humans are ethically superior to animals only because they are more intellectual. He thinks that all sentient beings, regardless of IQ, deserve moral concern. Norcross contends that rationality is not the fundamental characteristic of moral value since it fails to account for the moral standing of organisms incapable of complicated reasoning. A more basic standard for moral evaluation, according to him, is the sentience (the capacity to feel both pleasure and misery). This is so because most ethical theories are based on the idea that damage must be avoided, and sentience is the foundation for perceiving suffering. I believe to understand the paragraph above, I have to differentiate between moral patienthood and moral agenthood. Moral patienthood refers to the ability to be subject of moral concern and be subject to moral regard. Moral agenthood, however, is the ability to make moral decisions and act on them. Animals are basically moral patients, but humans are moral patients as well as agents. They are capable of experiencing pain and suffering, thus they ought to be protected from harm. While some animals may demonstrate rudimentary moral thinking, their potential for moral agency is far less developed than that of humans. As a result, while rationality may play a role in defining moral status for agents, it is not required for moral patienthood. I do not agree when it comes to Norcross’s opinion on how the public is no better than Fred (aka the Puppy Torturer). For us as a whole, Fred was killing, and maiming little puppies for only a small benefit for himself and just to taste a