Consequentialism is a values first view says acts are morally right, because they maximize the good in the world. There is another view of consequentialism that is called utilitarian consequentialism, which views the welfare of living things ,and then further goes into hedonistic utilitarianism accounting living beings with accounts of pleasure and pain. Philosopher Bentham and Mill were Utilitarians. They believed that the well-being of humans is what is intrinsically valuable or good of itself. Consequentialism comes down to the rule and act. Rules are judged on the consequences and whether it maximizes the well-being. Furthermore consequential acts are judged individually by the consequences and whether or not they were maximized. In the shafer landau 's argument it raises the importance of animals to humans and whether it 's morally wrong to kill, eat, or experiment on them if we don 't do such things to our own species. In the following paper i 'm going to introduce some motivations behind this argument and why it might stand true to some utilitarians and hedonists, while on the other hand it questions the definition of consequentialism, egoism, and Mill’s account of quality pleasure
1. If it is immoral to kill and eat “marginal” human beings, and to painfully experiment on them, then it is immoral to treat non-human animals this way.
2. It is almost always immoral to kill and eat “marginal” human beings, and to painfully experiment on them.
3. Therefore, it is almost…