American University of Beirut

Truthful Utilitarianism

Pamela Dagher

English 203

Professor Kathryn Lincoln

November 19, 2015

| |

Through the years, a massive majority of animals were forced to live and perish in circumstances most of us would believe are morally unacceptable. During 2001, almost 17 billion animals in Western countries were raised and slaughtered to feed populations. An additional 100 million animals were killed in laboratories for research purposes, while another 30 million were killed for their fur. Sadly, this insane number of killed animals has been justified by several theories and beliefs that animals, for being nonhuman, are not worthy of any important moral consideration (Lin). Numerous reasonable ethical theories approve that this belief is mistaken, and Utilitarianism is the most important one of them. Animal abuse is the cause of a larger problematic which is the misinterpretation of Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is an ethical theory and a lifestyle that says: “Act in such a way as to maximize the expected satisfaction of interests in the world, equally considered” (Mill). This rule is the application of the logical following ideology,“The Principle of Equal Consideration of Interests.” This ideology assumes that we should keep in mind which actions we would choose if we had to live the lives of every single person affected by us. In other words, the theory implies for us to sum up the interests of all the parties affected by any action we do and according to that we choose the actions that lead to the most neutral satisfactions of interests without affecting anyone. Utilitarianism is the application of the principal of equality. The misinterpretation of Utilitarianism that we mentioned earlier is to take this ethical theory as if it were only set for humans. People tend to believe that Utilitarianism does not imply nonhuman animals and that they are not worthy of moral consideration for three main reasons. People believe that nonhuman animals do not have interests to look at. Humans consider as well that animals do not have emotions to take into consideration and that the existence of this diversity of species in itself is a reason for treating some beings as morally less or more important than others. If Utilitarianism were understood and practiced in a correct way, we would no longer be suffering from animal abuse. Utilitarianism explains how animals do have interests and emotions and are, therefore, worth moral consideration (Matheny 14).

According to the theory of equal consideration of interests, all interests should be of great importance without being selective and taking into consideration “whose” interests they are (Matheny 16). All humans live their lives based on the interests they have. A few examples of common interests humans share are being successful in life, getting high job positions, having fun with friends or avoiding getting sick and feeling pain and so on. Summing up different interests, we can basically state that the feelings of pain and pleasure matter to all who feel them and are both behind all interests. The main interests of all humans are to live a pleasurable life free of pain. Therefore, it follows that we are obliged to take into consideration the interests of every being capable of feeling pain and pleasure.

After relating interests to the feeling of pain and pleasure, we can now pose the following question: Are any nonhuman animals living without any feelings? Daily experiences, common sense and involvement with animals are enough to let most humans answer negatively. Answering negatively, in other words, animals can feel pain and pleasure, automatically proves that animals do have interests and are, therefore, worth moral consideration according to the ethical theory. (Basic feelings such as pleasure and pain do not include emotions, the part that will be covered later on.)

On the other hand, seeing this subject from a different perspective can make us raise another question: How can we be certain that non humans do feel pain and pleasure and therefore, do have interests?

Gaverick Mathery mentions in his essay, “Utilitarianism and Animals,” found in Peter Singer’s book, In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave, that very few biologists today doubt animals feel pain and pleasure. He also gave the example of his friend who shrieks after burning himself on the stove. He says that such behavior might be a very sophisticated robot programmed to react in this way to certain kind of stimuli. In other words, we could never be sure if certain parties feel pain and pleasure or not. But Mathery continues by saying that since his friend is biologically similar to himself, and he himself knows that he can feel pain and reacts to such stimuli the same way, then the friend feels pain the same way Mathery does (Mathery in Singer 16). Keeping this idea in mind, another question is posed: Is there a tangible proof showing that animals feel pain and pleasure? The answer would be, yes, there is since mammals’ biological combination and reaction to something hot are similar to ours as human beings. After mentioning that animals do feel pain and pleasure and accordingly have interests, we cannot deny the fact that they are, as much as we are, involved in Utilitarianism and worth moral consideration.

Yes, animals other than feeling physical pain have emotions, hence are worth moral consideration. Animals can feel lonely, cry when they are sad, get aggressive when they are angry and, more than that, commit suicide when they are depressed. In his article, “Do Animal Commit Suicide? A scientific Debate,” Justin Nobel mentions seven cases of animals that actually did commit suicide due to depression, after losing a companion, for example. Alice Walker mentions in her text as well that animals do have emotions and try to communicate them to us. She describes in her text how she could see the pain and loneliness in the eyes of Blue (Walker in Sinno, Bioghlu-Karkanawi, Fleszar et al 630). Knowing that animals do feel pain and pleasure and have emotions, how can maltreating and murdering animals be seen as ordinary? Adopting the Utilitarianism theory is a must when we do know that animals can actually feel pain and have all kinds of emotions. Try to live the lives of others before doing any action. The principle of Utilitarianism then agrees with David Sztybel’s point of view that the abuse of animals can be compared to the Holocaust since animals and humans both can feel pain and torture and are equally worth moral consideration. In the end, animals cannot be maltreated for being a different species. Animals, only considering that they have feelings and emotions, are worth moral consideration and worthy to be treated ethically. Other people believe that moral consideration cannot be applied to species that do not understand what morality means. Therefore, for being a different species that does not understand our language and does not have brains able to develop the term morality, animals must not earn moral consideration. Following a logical way of thinking, we can first of all detach the lack of an animal’s ability to understand morality from us having the right to abuse and kill them. Matheny poses a very important question in his essay: “Why would an animal’s lack of normal human levels of rationality, intelligence, or language give us license to ignore her or his pain?” (Matheny 18). If we want to follow this theory and take away from every being that does not have rationality the right of moral respect, infants and brain damaged people will not be worthy of moral respect as well. Being a different species or having less intelligence and capabilities again is not an excuse for believing that animals are not worth moral consideration. Animals are worth moral consideration despite the fact that they are a different species that might not meet humans’ levels of rationality, intelligence and language. Utilitarianism suggests to us that we think seriously of creating a Declaration of Animal Rights due to all the animal abuse we are encountering nowadays, thus agreeing with William A. Edmundson who pledged for the same cause in “Do Animals Need Rights?” Trying to imagine how others might be affected by a certain behavior of ours before behaving helps massively in abolishing all kinds of abuse. Utilitarianism is the theory that impels humans to behave and think this way. Truthful Utilitarianism means we should understand that thinking of others before behaving includes animals as well. Animals feel pain and pleasure, have interests, have emotions and should be treated in a moral way.

Works Cited

Lin, Doris. “How Many Animals Are Killed Each Year?” 10 November 2015 <http://animalrights.about.com/od/animalrights101/tp/How-Many-Animals-Are-Killed.htm>
Matheny, Gaverick, “Utilitarianism and Animals” In Peter Singer, In Defense of Animals: The Second Wave. New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. 2005.
Mill, John.“Utilitarianism.” 10 November 2015 <http://www.utilitarianism.com/mill1.htm>
Nobel, Justin. March 19 2010. “Do Animals Commit Suicide? Scientific Debate.” 12 November 2015 <http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1973486,00.html>
Sztybel, David. “Can the Treatment of Animals Be Compared to the Holocaust?” Ethics and the Environment, Vol. 11, No, 1 (spring, 2006): pp.97-132
Walker, Alice. “Am I Blue?” In Zane S. Sinno, Lina Bioghlu-Karkanawi, Dorota Fleszar et al (Eds.) Shifting Narratives: A Reader for Academic Writing. Beirut: Educart. 2015. 629-632.
William A. Edmundson, “Do Animals Need Rights?” Journal of Political Philosophy 10.111 (2015): 345-360. Print.