Conclusions - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 144

of putting the welfare level in case of non-existence at zero should
be resisted. Zero welfare is a situation in which positive and negative
welfare hold the balance, and that is different from the situation of non-
existence to which the welfare level is inapplicable.
Unless proponents of Total Utilitarianism can make a convincing case
for non-existent beings having a welfare level, they cannot claim that
bringing a being into existence can make this being better or worse off
in terms of welfare. If this claim is impossible, the possibility of maxim-
ising welfare by making happy beings, as accepted by the Total View,
cannot be explained in person-affecting terms. Therefore, it seems that
Total Utilitarianism does indeed fit better with the Impersonal View on
the evaluation of outcomes.
A major criticism against utilitarianism is that it is overly imper-
sonal, not interested in sentient beings, but only in the maximisation
of welfare as an abstract quantity. I have shown that Prior Existence
Utilitarianism is a truly person-affecting version of utilitarianism. Prior
Existence Utilitarianism does not imply that making happy beings is
on a par with making beings happy. It does not treat sentient beings
as replaceable. It is focused on maximising aggregate net benefits for
sentient beings. An underlying rationale for such a form of utilitarianism
can be the principle of equal consideration. If that rationale underlies
the duty to neutrally maximise welfare, which is defined as aggregate
net benefit, arguably the respect for sentient beings is accounted for at
the most basic level of utilitarianism. Total Utilitarianism, in contrast,
fits better with the teleological rationale, according to which welfare
as such should be maximised, because it is good, no matter whether
maximising welfare benefits or harms sentient beings.
Finally, let me get back to animal husbandry. A still very popular argu-
ment in defence of animal-friendly animal husbandry is called the Logic
of the Larder. It holds that animals actually benefit from animal-friendly
animal husbandry because the animals have pleasant lives and they
would not exist at all if it were not for being killed. This argument can
appear to be a utilitarian argument. The underlying idea is that a short
and pleasant life is better for the animal than no life at all.
Proponents of Total Utilitarianism accept the Logic of the Larder, either
because they accept that bringing a being into existence can benefit that
being, or because they evaluate outcomes in terms of the abstract quan-
tity of welfare that they contain, or both. Again, those who accept the
Logic of the Larder must accept it in principle for all animals, both human
and non-human. For instance, Singer has evoked a thought experiment
of babies being produced for the purpose of organ donation. Provided