Introduction - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 3

of possible actions have to be compared in terms of their overall effects
on welfare. The welfare consequences that an outcome contains have
to be brought together (aggregated) in order to determine the overall
value of the outcome. Utilitarianism thereby takes into consideration
the welfare consequences for all sentient beings, equally. Thus, utilitari-
anism strives for the maximization of welfare for all sentient beings.
Yet, how does utilitarianism judge the killing of animals? In particular,
could utilitarian moral theory justify the ideal of animal-friendly animal
husbandry? The mainstream view is that utilitarianism supports the ideal
of animal-friendly animal husbandry. For instance, Peter Singer, the most
famous animal ethicist and utilitarian, and one of the most influential
philosophers in the world, makes it very clear that the standard form
of intensive animal husbandry that causes animals a lot of suffering is
morally indefensible. In contrast, Singer suggests that there might be
nothing wrong with granting animals pleasant lives and then painlessly
killing them. 4 Typically, the utilitarian position is presented as opposing
unnecessary suffering, while allowing the painless killing of animals, or
at least keeping this latter issue somewhat vague. 5
This utilitarian 'welfarist' position is commonly contrasted with the
'abolitionist' position of animal rightists. 6 Those who strive for 'empty
cages' rather than 'bigger cages' have accused utilitarianism of not
taking animals seriously enough. In this topic, I will show that this is an
incomplete and therefore wrong picture of utilitarianism. Whether or
not utilitarianism is compatible with the ideal of animal-friendly animal
husbandry depends on which version of utilitarianism one accepts or
refers to. While one version, Total Utilitarianism, is compatible with the
ideal of animal-friendly animal husbandry and could be used to justify
it, another version, Prior Existence Utilitarianism, is not. The aim of this
topic is to explore the various implications and assumptions of both
Total Utilitarianism and Prior Existence Utilitarianism.
Singer's Replaceability Argument plays a central role in the utilitarian
evaluation of animal-friendly animal husbandry and therefore also in this
topic. The claim is that the welfare loss caused by killing an animal that
could otherwise have had a pleasant future can be compensated by bringing
into existence another animal that would not otherwise have existed and
whose life contains at least as much welfare as the future of the killed
animal would have contained. In all likelihood that argument has been
the most controversial part of Singer's whole theory and has provoked
criticisms about it being overly impersonal. As Singer points out:
The replaceability argument was probably the most controversial,
and widely criticized, argument in PE [ Practical Ethics ]. Unfortunately