Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 24

GREATER
A

GREAT
B

ALSO GREAT

Figure 1 Greater versus Great and Also Great

Let me illustrate the difference between the Impersonal View and the
Person-Affecting Restriction in practice. Consider the question which of
two outcomes should be brought about. Outcome A consists of a popu-
lation with a very high welfare level (GREATER). Outcome B consists of
an equally large population and an even larger population, both with a
slightly lower welfare level (GREAT and ALSO GREAT).
If one considers only the intrinsic aspects of the outcomes, i.e. the
total amount of welfare which they contain, B is better than A. On the
intrinsic aspect view, i.e. the Impersonal View, B should be brought about
rather than A. If, however, one accepts the Person-Affecting Restriction,
it's less clear cut. If, for instance, the question is whether the popula-
tion in GREATER should give up welfare, resulting in ALSO GREAT, in
order to have additional children (GREAT), thereby bringing about B,
the answer would be 'no'. According to the Person-Affecting Restriction,
B would not be preferable to A in this case. This is because it matters that
the population GREAT consists of contingent beings and those would
not be made 'better off' by being brought into existence. 24 In contrast,
the GREATER population would be made worse off by being required to
transform into ALSO GREAT. This is a different people choice, because
outcomes A and B do not consist of exactly the same people.
We will come back to this distinction later on. Let us now see what
utilitarianism has to say about animal husbandry.

4 Utilitarianism and animal husbandry

As explained, according to utilitarianism saying that a being has to be
included in our moral consideration does not mean that the being is
ensured of a particular treatment. Nobody, for instance, is accorded
any 'inalienable rights', such as the right to life or the right to bodily