In Relation to the overall reading, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Meat and Marginal Cases,” I do agree with many of the facts and theories about favoritism of Certain animals: puppies, for example, like Norcross, the author, said; and the fact that despite that Fred’s example of killing animals is a very alarming One, that does not take the guilt away or give less of a culpability to meat, Pork, and chicken consumers, etc., that we encounter nowadays. But as the Reading goes on, the main argument involves the fact that, we do not see Fred’s Case, the same way we see the fact that all these animals that human beings Consume, also go through a very rough and mistreating process, for us to eat. However, Is there any type of exception for those who eat Kashrut? (Kosher), (a set of Jewish dietary laws.) The way Kosher works is based on causing the animal the Less amount of pain possible. This idea is based on the fact that the animal Should suffer the least amount possible on their death. So, if the Kosher Lifestyle is one based on basically the “no-suffering” of animals, would this Still have the same lack of “moral worth” than Fred’s actions and the rest of The overall animal killing for eating purposes?