Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
must either accept the implications of one of those strategies, or else
accept that all animals, human as well as non-human, are in principle
replaceable.
What else does it take to accept the Replaceability Argument? The
Replaceability Argument is based on a certain view that is controversial
within utilitarianism. An exploration of that controversy will be central
to this topic. In the following section, I will provide a first sketch of the
theoretical presuppositions of the Replaceability Argument.
6 The Replaceability Argument is based on
a controversial view
The Replaceability Argument rests on an assumption that is disputed
within utilitarianism. It presupposes that the possible welfare of possible
individuals must be taken into account in the evaluation of outcomes.
This entails not just future individuals, but also
contingent beings, i.e.
beings that might or might not come to exist
. Let me mention an example
in order to provide a first idea of what the relevant issue is. Imagine
a couple considering whether or not to have a child. Imagine that the
couple would be slightly less happy when they would have a child, as
compared to their lives without any child. Assume that no others would
be affected in their welfare. Should the couple have a child? If the poten-
tial welfare of the contingent child is allowed to enter into the calcu-
lation, the couple will be
required
to have a child, if the child can be
expected to lead a happy life. This is because the positive welfare of the
child that is caused by the choice to have the child would outweigh the
slight loss of welfare for the couple. In contrast, if the potential welfare of
the contingent child were not allowed to enter into the calculation, than
the couple would be required on utilitarian grounds to remain childless.
This is because the couple would be less happy with a child.
The Replaceability Argument rests on the view that the potential
welfare of contingent beings should count in the aggregation of welfare.
It takes the welfare of the possible new animal into account when consid-
ering whether to kill the existing one. Killing an animal that would have a
pleasant future is a welfare loss. The outcome in which the animal is killed
and replaced yields as much welfare as the outcome in which the animal
is not killed if and only if the welfare of the contingent second animal is
taken into account. In the following chapter, I will introduce the contro-
versy about that view. The main part of this topic will be concerned with
exploring two rival views on this issue and finding out what they entail.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search