Utilitarianism and Animal Husbandry - Killing Happy Animals: Explorations in Utilitarian Ethics - page 32

The central discussion in this topic will have implications for the ques-
tion how impersonal utilitarianism is and ought to be. I will present a
version of utilitarianism that avoids the Replaceability Argument.
The Replaceability Argument will be explored in Chapter 4. The
following chapter will explore the question that has been left unan-
swered above. This is the question whether and in how far animals are
harmed by death.
6 Conclusion
Utilitarianism is a controversial moral theory. It does not accept that
any action as such can be wrong: all depends on the consequences.
Utilitarianism accepts no a priori limits of what one can do to others.
Whatever maximizes welfare is allowed, and even required. This has led
to the criticism that utilitarianism is not really concerned with individ-
uals, but rather with an abstract notion of welfare as such. The central
theoretical discussion in this topic is relevant for this issue. The two
versions of utilitarianism that will be explored in this topic differ in
terms of how impersonal they are.
The sole ultimate good or value, according to utilitarianism, is welfare.
Utilitarianism's theory of the right requires that the aggregate of welfare
should be maximized. Two different methods of aggregation are the total
view, which simply sums up the welfare of all concerned, and the average
view, which sums up the welfare that is contained in an outcome and then
takes the average by dividing it through the number of affected beings.
Utilitarianism can evaluate other focal points, besides actions, in terms
of whether they maximize welfare. For instance, it can also evaluate rules,
motives or character. Any evaluative focal point can be either directly
evaluated in terms of welfare maximization, as in 'Choose the act that
maximizes welfare!' It can also indirectly be evaluated, as in 'Choose the
act which is in line with the best character, which is the one that maxi-
mizes welfare.' In that example, character would be a direct evaluative
focal point and would act an indirect one. It is possible to accept several
direct evaluative focal points, such as acts, motives and character.
Utilitarianism's rationale explains why welfare ought to be maximized.
A possible rationale might be fairness, equality or respect. According to
such a rationale, welfare ought to be neutrally maximized, because that
is the best way to give equal consideration to equal interests.
With respect to animal husbandry, utilitarianism strongly supports
the idea that animal welfare matters. Intensive animal husbandry would
not be sanctioned by utilitarianism. What about the killing of animals?