Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 25

integrity. In fact, what might be done unto anybody depends on what
maximizes overall welfare. This holds at least at the critical level of the
moral theory. In daily life, utilitarians might accept the recognition of
rules and rights that determine what one might do unto others simply
because doing so maximizes welfare in all but exceptional cases. 25
The permissibility of using animals depends on the consequences in
terms of welfare, as compared to alternatives. I have already introduced
as one of utilitarianism's central assumptions the view that all sentient
beings count equally as moral objects. According to utilitarianism, animal
welfare counts as much as human welfare. Thus, for example, the seri-
ousness of suffering is typically determined by the intensity and duration
of the suffering. 26 It is not determined by what the suffering being is.
Let me illustrate the considerations that are necessary from a utilitarian
perspective in order to morally evaluate the practice of animal husbandry.
Imagine that a legislator had the power to choose whether or not to allow
intensive animal husbandry. Allowing it would cause a lot of animal
suffering. It would also cause some suffering of humans who are opposed
to intensive animal husbandry. Furthermore, it would cause some enjoy-
ment for humans who like to eat animal products. It is an open question
how the balance between all positive and negative welfare consequences
of the action would be struck. This outcome, whatever it is, would need
to be compared to the outcomes of alternative options. For instance, the
legislator could choose to rule out intensive animal husbandry and allow
more animal-friendly animal husbandry. Possibly, many positive welfare
consequences would be safeguarded, while many negative ones would
be avoided. If this would be the case, so-called animal-friendly animal
husbandry would be the morally better option. 27
On the basis of these sorts of considerations, it has been argued that
at least intensive animal husbandry is a major source of avoidable
suffering. 28 There are alternatives that score better in terms of overall
welfare. Therefore, utilitarianism generally condemns intensive animal
husbandry. So-called animal-friendly animal husbandry seems to be pref-
erable, from a utilitarian perspective. After all, roughly the same benefits
can be realized with less suffering. 29 A crucial question would be how
much suffering this form of animal husbandry still implies, as compared
to alternatives, including plant-based ways of feeding people.
What about the killing of animals? We have seen that causing an
animal to suffer is morally problematic. But what if the killing does
not cause any suffering? How should killing be evaluated, apart from
the eventual suffering that it might cause? The question whether and
in how far death harms an animal will be explored in the following