Utilitarianism questions
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Instructor
Date
Utilitarianism questions
Q1.What implications does utilitarianism have for our treatment of nonhuman animals? How do Utilitarian’s argue for their conclusions about nonhuman animals? Do you find the Utilitarian’s decisions about animals plausible? If so, why? If not, how would you respond to their arguments?
Utilitarianism argues that morality gets determined by examining the “degree of happiness an act will bring to the world” (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 147). Based on utilitarianism, our right moral actions are the ones that minimize the overall worse or maximize the overall best (Boase & Humphreys, 2018). In determining what is good or bad, the theory considers every individual affected, including nonhuman animals. In determining the effects of an action, we should take into account the interests of other species. (Boase & Humphreys (2018), discriminating against any existing species affected by an act unjust. The theory further insists that so long as a nonhuman species receive preferences (McCarthy et al., 2020, p. 111), positive experience or negative experience, their interests should determine whether an action is right or wrong.
Utilitarianism argues that “the moral consideration of nonhuman animals is important in determining the morality of an act” (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 127). The theory argues that nonhuman animals’ interests are equally important as humans (McCarthy et al., 2020, p. 88); thus, they should get equal treatment in determining morality. The degree of respect accorded to the interests of both human and nonhuman animals is the same.
In my own opinion, the Utilitarian’s conclusion that the interests of human and nonhuman animals be considered equal is not plausible (Birch, 2020, p. 11). The theory does not give a good idea of how the suffering of wild animals should get considered. Again the approach lacks practicality as it appears to reject animal exploitation (Killoren & Streiffer, 2020, p.1059). If we adapt utilitarianism entirely, we would have declared human exploitation of animals for food and economic prosperity as immoral. The theory acknowledges the exploitation of animals if and only if the happiness the exploitation causes is more than harm (Birch, 2020, p. 11). In practicality, considering the interests of human and nonhuman equal happiness in exploiting nonhuman animals will never be more than harm. This theory is thus totally unpractical.
Q2. Utilitarians think that some humans are morally equal to some animals. What exactly do they mean by this, and how do they argue for it? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
In thinking that some humans are morally equal to some animals, utilitarians “consider animals as members of the moral community” (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 143). They should get considered while determining what is right or wrong. They take note of the fact that just like humans, animals suffer too. They also emphasize that if a human being causes an animal to suffer, that is an immoral act (Killoren & Streiffer, 2020, p.1050). Since humans and animals get treated as equal in determining morality (Birch, 2020, p. 11), the only difference is their species. For example, the challenge is that if killing and eating a human is immoral, the same applies to animals.
I agree with the utilitarians that” (Shafer-Landau, 2015, p. 149). Nonhumans are as crucial as humans because they also suffer even much more than humans. Just like humans experience pain, suffer a lack of necessities such as water and food, nonhumans even suffer the most based on the environment they occupy. In the wild, animals suffer droughts, lousy weather, and persistent fear of predators. Again humans are not better in terms of power as compared to animals. For example, some animals are faster than humans, jump higher than humans, and are more potent than humans. Animals also show a sense of morality, even in the wild. When a heard of buffalo is in danger of predators, one animal may signal the rest so that the entire heard responds accordingly. In doing this, the animal shows morality and responsibility it owes to the rest of the animals. However, I can’t entirely agree with Utilitarian’s argument that killing an animal by a human is immoral. Animals do not have morals, so they do not owe any responsibility to human beings.
On the other hand, humans have morals, so they owe animals responsibility. Humans take care of animals, but animals cannot take the care of humans. Based on this reasoning, man is there to take care of animals (Boase & Humphreys, 2018) while animals exist to serve man. Therefore no animal can ever be equal to humans.
Reference
Birch, J. (2020). The place of animals in Kantian ethics. Biology & Philosophy, 35(1), 1-11. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-019-9712-0.
Boase, J., & Humphreys, L. (2018). Mobile methods: Explorations, innovations, and reflections.
Retrieved from:
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2050157918764215.
Shafer-Landau, R. (2015). The fundamentals of ethics. (117-152). Retrieved from:
https://philpapers.org/rec/SHATFO-4.
McCarthy, D., Mikkola, K., & Thomas, T. (2020). Utilitarianism with and without expected utility.
Journal of Mathematical Economics, 87, 77-113; Retrieved from:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304406820300045
Killoren, D., & Streiffer, R. (2020).Utilitarianism about animals and the moral significance of use.
Philosophical Studies, 177(4), 1043-1063. Retrieved from:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-018-01229-1