Utilitarianism and Animal Rights Consequentialist Ethics & Animal Suffering Calculating Moral Decisions Utilitarianism comes from the work utility, or usefulness. The system came about in reaction to taking the decision making power away from the individual in systems where the government would tell its citizens is right. In favor of democracy Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill believed that an ethical system should involve and value the individual as well as the society. Not too far away from Hedonism, Utilitarianism maintains that happiness is the greatest ethical good. Further, given their commitment to results, whatever produces the greatest amount of happiness is the greatest good. This built the key phrase for utilitarianism, "The greatest good for the greatest number of people". Let's unpack this a bit. Two things are required for happiness for the greatest number of people. First, this principle includes what egoism leaves out. Each person is valuable, therefore one person's happiness is as important as another's. Equal regard for the interest of all is the basis of democracy. Utilitarianism acknowledges that happiness "for all" cannot be achieved in every situation. People's interest conflict, and some people will have to concede their interests for the sake of the "greatest number". If a vote does not go your way, the will of the majority should be accepted. This requires a bit of sacrifice from everyone. However, the sacrifice is not good in itself. Both utilitarianism and democracy are part of a more comprehensive rebellion against authoritarian structures in which power and law came from the top down. In such structures, ethics was generally based on rules, and those who followed the right rules from the right sources were considered good. Utilitarianism's response to authoritarianism is twofold. First , it builds on the assumption that truth comes to us through our senses. We do not need to rely on a source that must be accepted by faith or under coercion. Second, utilitarianism does not judge actions by their conformity to rules like "do not murder" or "do not commit adultery." Instead, if we want to know if something is right or wrong, we look at the results. We as how a potential course of action will turn out. This is what is called consequentialist system. Ethical truth is found in the consequences of our actions; it is subject to testing. Although utilitarianism rejects faith as a sufficient basis for ethics, it does not necessarily leave God out of the picture (but some utilitarians do). Theistic utilitarianism simply argues that we need to understand how God communicates his will to us--that is, that God teaches us through our senses. Quantitative Utilitarianism Bentham's goal was to make ethics quantifiable because, if indeed goodness results from happiness, then we need a way to determine which choices lead to the greatest amount of happiness. In fact, the concepts of measurement and objectivity are reflected in the name of his method: hedonistic calculus. He divides happiness into 7 categories: • • • • • • • Intensity (how intense is the happiness?) Duration (how long will it last?) Certainty (what is the probability of obtaining desired results?) Propinquity (how soon?) Fecundity (will it lead to similar pleasures?) Purity (how much pain comes with it?) Extent (how many are affected?) Bentham believed that most people use a similar process without realizing it. For example, if you have ever made a major decision by listing positives and negatives on opposite sides of a sheet of paper, you have engaged in the process similar as Bentham's hedonistic calculus. Should I change jobs now or stick with my present one? What is included on one side or the other of your sheet probably reflects several of the categories listed above. While John Stuart Mill believed Bentham's fundamental idea was sound, he modified utilitarianism to emphasize the qualitative aspects of pleasure. Mill argues that quantitative utilitarianism is incomplete because it does not recognize that humans have both "higher" and "lower" desires. But How Do We Calculate Quality? Another problem is that not everyone has experienced the higher pleasures. How do we know which pleasures are higher? Mill's solution is relatively straightforward. If a person has experienced two pleasures and is under no pressure to choose one over the other, the pleasure he or she freely chooses is the higher. The fool does not have a clue about the pleasure of wisdom, but Socrates understands the lower pleasures that appeal to the fool. Thus, Socrates is in a better position to make qualitative judgements about ethical options. This does not mean that the value of anyone's happiness can be disregarded in our decisions, but it does mean that no every person is in a position to be a competent judge of moral matters. The Positive Aspects of Utilitarianism Utilitarianism can be summarized in three main points: 1. Happiness is the only thing that is intrinsically good. Only pain (or unhappiness) is evil in itself. 2. No one persons (including our own) happiness is more valuable than that of any other. Therefore, we should seek the pleasure of the greatest number. 3. The only thing that is ethically significant in judging an action is the result. Since happiness is the only intrinsic good, it is the result to be pursued. On reason utilitarianism looks so plausible is that it links doing good and happiness. That we do naturally seek happiness is hard to deny. What kind of world would it be if goodness made people miserable. Thus, connecting happiness with good and unhappiness with evil rings true. Another attractive feature for many is that utilitarianism is oriented to results. Because it requires that beliefs be empirically verifiable, it gives people a way to keep subjective elements from creeping into their ethical decisions. A third positive point is the versatility of the approach. When we make social policy decisions on such diverse issues as taxation, education or criminal law, it is difficult to think of a better approach than respect for the greatest happiness for the majority. It seems just as natural to apply this principle to decisions of personal morality. Finally, utilitarianism offers a means of balancing individual freedoms with social obligations. On the one side, it allows for equality: The happiness of each person is of equal importance. Individual interests receive consideration alongside the desires of all others. On the other side, it recognizes that society cannot survive without concessions by individual members. Thus, with the "one person, one vote" concept implicit in utilitarianism, each person is free to say what will bring him happiness, but ultimately each person has to accept the decision of the majority. The History of Utilitarianism Some Negative Aspects of Utilitarianism Can we really ever know the results? If our actions are judged by their consequence, then decisions about the goodness of our actions are dependent on knowing something that is still in the future. And because the future by definition is unknowable, then we are left in a kind of ethical limbo until we know whether the results we anticipate come to pass. Faced with a lack of energy-generating capacity, Salem had to determine the best solution to a problem. This problem was not just political, because it involved questions of taxation, possible relocation of people from homes or jobs, subjecting those nearby to potential health hazards, and other ethical concerns. According to utilitarianism, the moral solution would be the one that involved the least amount of pain and maximized happiness. Every form of power facility considered (hydroelectric, solar, wind) and had its good and bad points. However, it came down that a nuclear power plant provided too much of a danger should it malfunction and spread nuclear waste all over the city. Thus, though expensive, the alternative sources of power were chosen. However, a year after the plant was built at high expense (unhappiness) new nuclear technologies came out that solved all the potential problems of building a nuclear plant at a much lower cost. This analogy also goes to prove that utilitarianism cannot tell us at what time we should act. In this case, the greatest happiness would have been brought about by simply waiting one year to build the power plant. How do we compare results? Just as we do not know the future for certain, we also do not know "what would have happened if...?" Take for example the assassination of JFK. All of us would probably denounce such a terrible act of violence, right? But let's say that JFK was planning on testing a biological warfare weapon on a poverty stricken nation a month after he was actually assassinated. According to the ethic of utilitarianism, while JFK lost his life, the act of murder was actually morally praiseworthy in reality because it saved the lives of thousands. We just don't stand in a good position to know, what would happen if... Can we know the extent of the consequences? Utilitarianism requires that we do the "greatest good" and that it be for the "greatest number of people". But can we really know how many people will be affected? Have there been people in your life that have profoundly affected you in a positive way, a friend, acquaintance, etc. And because of that person, you have become a better person who will handoff that legacy to your children or others around you. Likewise, perhaps you have profoundly hurt by alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. and because of that you don't trust people. The influences of others' decisions on your life will never be fully known. Further, the greatest good or greatest happiness assumes we know what constitutes happiness for other people. Perhaps, we think we are acting for others' happiness when in fact we are making them miserable. Let's say Chuck decides that he wants to make a huge impact on other people's lives and becomes a motivational speaker, markets his events well, has thousands to show up and hear him speak, but in reality his message is boring, simplistic and in some cases false. He acts out of the utilitarian principle that he is spreading the love, when in fact, he is making people miserable. Animal Rights What is A "Right"? The word “right” carries many different definitions with it. It could mean the direction other than left. It could refer to a political party or a political philosophy. It could also mean an entitlement. For the purposes of this week, we are going to take a closer look at animal rights. I think it important that we take a closer look at what we mean by animal and what we mean by right. Animal itself has many definitions. If we analyze the word animal from a Scientific perspective with a scientific definition we might thing that anything that falls under the classification of animal is an animal: humans, bears, coyotes, chipmunks, lizards, and bugs. If we look at animal from a philosophical perspective we might consider things like consciousness and/or reason. When we are looking at animals this week we must consider animals as falling under both definitions: the kinds of things classified by science, as such, and the kinds of things that ontologically exhibit consciousness. When we are considering rights, the Stanford Dictionary of philosophy states that “rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states.” (Reference: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rights/). When we begin to see definitions that involve entitlements we are looking at something that his going to be granted or not granted by mankind - in other words, we are bridging the realms of ethics with the area of political philosophy where mankind is deciding what is and is not permissible or privileged for other mankind - we are looking at how mankind creates laws that either protect or hinder these permissions or privileges. While there are many different forms of rights, I want to focus on rights as Privileges/Liberties and rights as Claims. Rights as privileges are those kinds of things that you can do if there is no moral obligation to do otherwise. For example: you have a right to skip a stone across the lake. There is no hinderance to your freedom or liberty to pick up a stone and skip it across a lake. Do Animals Have Rights? It's Complicated A right as a claim is the kinds of thing where a person has a duty to another person or thing. For example, you might make a promise to your neighbor that if he would put up a fence, then you will pay for the fence. Your neighbor has a claim on you because of the trust that he puts in your character to do what is good for him. One thing you notice is that much of this discussion revolves around the notion of duty. So, what do we do if duty is not part of the moral framework of mankind? What happens when two duties to do rights conflict? For instance, Corrie Ten Boom, a Dutch Christian, helped many Jews escape from Nazi Germany during World War II. She would hide them in her house underneath the floorboards. When she was approached by German Nazi’s and they asked her directly whether or not she was hiding Jews. What should she do by her “duty?” Should she tell the truth as it is always a duty to the state and doing a “duty” for the wellbeing of her soul (a right she could claim upon herself), or should she tell a lie and do her “duty” to protect the right of life? If rights retain their moral grounding in duty it seems that we are on very shaky grounds concerning any type of “right.” When we consider animal rights the crux of the issue comes down to do all animals have the same sorts of privileges and/or claims as humans? Does a wasp or an ant retain the same rights on life as an infant? If the wasp stings the infant should we put the wasp on trial for punitive damages towards the child and violating the child’s right not to be harmed by other animals? Does the wasp deserve that “right” to be tried “fairly?” Does a flamingo retain the same rights on life as the alligator that ate it? Should we execute the alligator for violating the rights on life of a flamingo? If a building is burning down and there is a choice to save someone’s pet rat or your child, would you consider it a violation of the rat’s rights if the fireman saved your child? What if the fireman saved the pet rat and let your child die in the fire, would the fireman be justified in saving the rat because all animals enjoy the same rights as any other animal? These are the kinds of questions and ideas we need to think through as we discuss animal rights this week.
Purchase answer to see full attachment