Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
chapter. Let us assume for a moment that death does not harm the
animal. Does this mean that killing an animal is morally unproblem-
atic? That depends on which view regarding the evaluation of outcomes
one assumes. According to the Impersonal View, an outcome should be
evaluated in terms of the quantity of welfare that it contains. According
to the Impersonal View, killing an animal that would otherwise have
had positive welfare is morally problematic, even if it does not harm
the animal. It is morally problematic because it reduces the overall
amount of welfare that the outcome contains. Quite simply, letting the
animal live out its pleasant future would result in more overall welfare
than killing the animal. In contrast, on the Person-Affecting View on
the evaluation of outcomes, outcomes should be evaluated in terms of
harms and benefits to sentient beings. On that view, if death would not
harm an animal, killing that animal would not be morally problematic.
After all, as the killing would harm nobody, the outcome in which the
animal was killed would not contain more harm. Let us now assume for
a moment that death harms an animal. In that case, it would not matter
whether one accepts the Impersonal View or the Person-Affecting View
about the evaluation of outcomes. Both views would consider killing
that animal morally problematic: the first because, again, killing reduces
the overall amount of welfare in the outcome, and the second because
killing results in an outcome which contains more harm.
So, killing is not morally wrong as such. It depends on the effect of
the killing on the value of the outcome. Now, the question is how the
death of a being affects the overall value of the outcome. This depends on
which method of aggregation is used: the total view (summing up) or the
average view (taking the average). 30 In general, if the number of beings is
the same in both outcomes, the outcome with the greatest total will also
be the one with the greatest average. However, both methods of aggrega-
tion can yield different results when the number of beings differs in both
outcomes. This is the case when the choice is about killing a being.
Let us consider killing an animal from the perspective of the average
view on aggregation. If the welfare of the killed animal is beneath
average, killing the animal raises the average and would, all else being
equal, be morally required. Thus, it becomes crucial what the average is.
For instance, is it the average welfare level of all sentient beings? If that
is the case, is it the average welfare level of all presently existing sentient
beings, or also of those that existed until now, or even that of future
beings? An implication of the average view is that the best outcome is
the one in which all are dead, except for the happiest being. Such an
implication seems at odds with the basic idea of utilitarianism, be it the
Search WWH ::




Custom Search