Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 22

interests these are, and no matter what the interests are. If this is taken
to be the underlying idea of utilitarianism, then maximization 'arises
as a by-product of a standard that is intended to aggregate people's
preferences fairly'. 15 The distinction between different rationales of the
duty to neutrally maximize welfare is important. It tells us why welfare
should be maximized. Later on we will see that one of the versions of
utilitarianism that I will identify fits particularly well with the rationale
of equal consideration.
Even critics of utilitarianism have acknowledged the attractiveness of
its central features:
Utilitarianism captures three intuitively plausible ideas about
morality. First, its commitment to welfarism accommodates our sense
that morality has to do with human well-being. Second, it is based on
a very plausible view of practical rationality. When it comes to ration-
ality in the realm of choice and action, the idea that we ought to bring
about as much good as possible seems irresistible. And finally, utilitari-
anism captures the idea that impartiality is at the heart of morality. 16
3 Quantity of welfare or net benefits?
There are two rival views about the evaluation of outcomes: the Person-
Affecting Restriction and the Impersonal View. Both views evaluate
outcomes in terms of welfare, but in different ways. The Impersonal
View focuses on the quantity of welfare that an outcome contains. The
Person-Affecting Restriction focuses on the question to what extent
the outcome affects the welfare of sentient beings. The focus is on
the question in how far sentient beings are better- or worse-off in an
outcome. Thus, according to this view on the evaluation of outcomes,
an outcome must always be evaluated as compared to another situa-
tion. One cannot evaluate it simply by its intrinsic features. 17 The
Person-Affecting Restriction might better be called the 'Sentient Beings-
Affecting Restriction', because it is not only concerned with harms and
benefits to persons, but to sentient beings in general. Yet, I will stick
to the common label. The Person-Affecting Restriction implies that an
outcome can only be better (or worse) if it is better (or worse) for one or
more sentient beings. It also implies that if outcome A is better (worse)
than B for someone but worse (better) for no one, then A is better (worse)
than B.
An implication of the Person-Affecting Restriction is: 'One outcome
cannot be worse (or better) than another in any respect if there is no