Notes - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 167

13. Timmons (2002, p. 104).
14. Kymlicka (2002, p. 32).
15. Kymlicka (2002, p. 33).
16. Timmons (2002, p. 147, italics mine). See also Kymlicka (2002).
17. Holtug (2003, p. 5).
18. Temkin (1993, p. 248). See also Arrhenius (2003, p. 186). This is usually
interpreted in the narrow way, meaning that the outcome must be better
or worse for a particular individual. However, it can only be interpreted
in a wider way, meaning that the outcome must be better or worse for
sentient beings, whoever they are. This distinction will be further explored
in Chapter 7.
19. Temkin (2000, p. 133).
20. Temkin (1993).
21. Glover (1990).
22. Parfit (1984, p. 387).
23. Temkin (1999, p. 782).
24. This is because the non-existent cannot be better or worse off. I will say more
on this issue in Chapter 6.
25. Here, I refer to the distinction between utilitarianism as a theory of the right
on the one hand, and what would be the best utilitarian decision proce-
dure on the other. In this regard, Hare (1981) distinguishes the critical level
of moral thinking from the intuitive level of moral thinking. On this latter
level, one should follow rules of thumb, which tend generally to maximize
welfare.
26. Singer (1995). See also Bentham (1963).
27. Of course, there would be more than just the above-mentioned consequences
to be taken into account. In addition, more than just those two above-men-
tioned options might exist.
28. Rollin (1995).
29. A full exploration of the choice would be complex, but the idea should be
clear, I suppose.
30. Those views have briefly been introduced in Section 3.1 of this chapter.
31. Singer (1993, ch. 5).
32. Rawls (1971, pp. 26-27). See also Gauthier (1962, p. 126) and Nagel (1970,
p. 134).
33. Nozick (1974, pp. 32-33).
34. See Norcross (2008b) for an analysis of and a reply to this objection.
35. Regan (2004, p. 210).
36. Regan (2004, p. 210).
37. Pluhar (1995, p. 182).
3 Animals and the Harm of Death
1. Singer (1993).
2. Singer (2011, pp. 98-9).
3. Bradley (2009b, pp. 128-9).
4. Marquis (2009, p. 144).