Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 27

rationale that welfare should be maximized because it is intrinsically
good, or the rationale that welfare should be maximized because every-
body's welfare matters equally. Therefore, I will not be concerned with
the average view on aggregation any further.
Let us now consider killing from the perspective of the total view
as a method of aggregation. Killing an animal which otherwise would
have had a pleasant future is likely to count as a loss of welfare, either
because it reduces the quantity of welfare in the outcome, or because
it adds to the harm in the outcome, or both. If the killing of an animal
makes the outcome worse in one of those ways, then, given the total
view as a method of aggregation, utilitarianism forbids the killing of
animals that would otherwise have had pleasant lives. That is, utili-
tarianism rules out killing those animals, unless the welfare loss can be
compensated. This 'unless' is important, and I will say more about it
soon. First, I want to discuss the killing of animals that would otherwise
have had unpleasant lives.
If an animal dies that would otherwise have had an unpleasant future,
the animal's death avoids negative welfare. The death of the animal in
that case would, ceteris paribus , have positive consequences in terms
of welfare. (The ceteris paribus clause implies, for instance, that nega-
tive effects on others need to be taken into account.) The death of the
animal would amount to the prevention of a certain amount of uncom-
pensated suffering. The killing of such an animal might yield the best
consequences. This does, of course, not mean that people are permitted
to kill animals in animal husbandry, if only they make their lives miser-
able enough. People should, ceteris paribus , not cause animals to suffer
because suffering diminishes welfare. Furthermore, as we have seen,
people should not kill an animal unless the animal would unavoidably
experience uncompensated suffering. If possible, people should avoid
making the animal suffer, for instance by treating it in a better way.
How can the welfare loss that is caused by the killing of an animal
that would otherwise have had a pleasant future be compensated? As
explained, killing an animal is required if this is the best or only way to
prevent greater welfare loss. This holds, no matter whether the welfare
loss would be constituted by the future suffering of the animal itself or
by the suffering of others. For instance, killing a cat would, ceteris paribus ,
be required if it were the only or best possibility to save the lives of two
other cats with together at least an equal amount of welfare. Killing an
animal is also allowed if the welfare loss is compensated by the positive
consequences that the killing has for others. If others would gain a lot of
welfare from the killing, that welfare can outweigh the welfare loss for