Charlotte Logan
Explain how a utilitarian might approach the issue of eating animals (12 Marks)
Utilitarians believe that the best decision is the decision that maximises utility and creates the
greatest net value of utility. As consequentialists, utilitarians decide whether actions are morally
right or wrong based on their effects, to them, the best thing possible to anybody is happiness. Act
utilitarianism understands happiness in terms of the balance of pleasure over pain. Preference is a
theory that we should maximise happiness in terms of the satisfaction of people’s preferences. Rule
is the idea that the right act is that act that complies with those rules which, if everybody followed
them, would lead to the greatest happiness.
For act utilitarianism, killing an animal would be morally correct as humans would gain lots of
pleasure from eating the meat from the animal. The humans would gain more pleasure from eating
the contents of the animal and as animals are not counted on the Felicific calculus, there happiness
is not counted for. If we do not count the animal’s emotions, then the question is simply whether
eating meat makes humans happier than not eating meat. There is a disagreement as to whether
animals can feel happiness. Singer suggested that we should consider animal happiness as well as
human happiness to avoid speciesism. We have to question is the amount of happiness generated
by the people eating the animal outweigh the pain and suffering when the animal is being
slaughtered. Also, humans may gain more happiness knowing that the animal was reared organically
compared to them being factory farmed. Overall, one animal’s suffering will be counteracted by 12
people being fed by the meat.
For rule utilitarianism, animals are not accounted for as the right act is the one that maximises
happiness for the maximum amount of people. Mill states ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied’. So, it seems that Mill would not want animals to be included in the happiness
calculation. This is because Mill believes that animals have the inability to experience higher and
lower pleasures and so cannot be compared with humans.
Finally, for preference utilitarianism, Singer argues that most animals suffer and would prefer not to
and so it is simple, yet important to take the animal’s preference into account. He reinforces
constantly that we should avoid speciesism. Animals have the preference to live a long, happy life
without their lives ending abruptly in a slaughterhouse. Some preference utilitarianists would argue
that eating meat is always wrong as more animals suffer than human happiness (on average, 1
person will eat 31 animals in a year). On the other hand, it is still a large argument that sometimes
peoples’ preferences might outweigh the animal’s preference.
Explain how a utilitarian might approach the issue of eating animals (12 Marks)
Utilitarians believe that the best decision is the decision that maximises utility and creates the
greatest net value of utility. As consequentialists, utilitarians decide whether actions are morally
right or wrong based on their effects, to them, the best thing possible to anybody is happiness. Act
utilitarianism understands happiness in terms of the balance of pleasure over pain. Preference is a
theory that we should maximise happiness in terms of the satisfaction of people’s preferences. Rule
is the idea that the right act is that act that complies with those rules which, if everybody followed
them, would lead to the greatest happiness.
For act utilitarianism, killing an animal would be morally correct as humans would gain lots of
pleasure from eating the meat from the animal. The humans would gain more pleasure from eating
the contents of the animal and as animals are not counted on the Felicific calculus, there happiness
is not counted for. If we do not count the animal’s emotions, then the question is simply whether
eating meat makes humans happier than not eating meat. There is a disagreement as to whether
animals can feel happiness. Singer suggested that we should consider animal happiness as well as
human happiness to avoid speciesism. We have to question is the amount of happiness generated
by the people eating the animal outweigh the pain and suffering when the animal is being
slaughtered. Also, humans may gain more happiness knowing that the animal was reared organically
compared to them being factory farmed. Overall, one animal’s suffering will be counteracted by 12
people being fed by the meat.
For rule utilitarianism, animals are not accounted for as the right act is the one that maximises
happiness for the maximum amount of people. Mill states ‘it is better to be a human dissatisfied
than a pig satisfied’. So, it seems that Mill would not want animals to be included in the happiness
calculation. This is because Mill believes that animals have the inability to experience higher and
lower pleasures and so cannot be compared with humans.
Finally, for preference utilitarianism, Singer argues that most animals suffer and would prefer not to
and so it is simple, yet important to take the animal’s preference into account. He reinforces
constantly that we should avoid speciesism. Animals have the preference to live a long, happy life
without their lives ending abruptly in a slaughterhouse. Some preference utilitarianists would argue
that eating meat is always wrong as more animals suffer than human happiness (on average, 1
person will eat 31 animals in a year). On the other hand, it is still a large argument that sometimes
peoples’ preferences might outweigh the animal’s preference.
