Overview
My thesis is concerned with the morality of killing animals in utilitarian ethics. The reason why this topic is interesting is that utilitarianism has a somewhat paradoxical position on animals. On the one hand, it is a moral theory extremely concerned with animal suffering. One its main tenants is the equal consideration of interests of all beings affected by the action. This principle requires us to value equal interests equally, regardless of who is the holder of the interest. This leads to a radical position on animal suffering: human and non-human suffering is given equal importance, as long as the interest in avoiding the suffering is equally strong. On the other hand, utilitarianism generally holds what has been considered a …show more content…
It can be divided into other questions, such as, what is wrong about killing, or is death bad for animals?
In regards to the morality of killing in utilitarian ethics, it is important to consider the different versions of utilitarianism. In the case of preference utilitarianism, the wrongness of killing depends on whether it thwarts the victim preferences about her life and future. On the other hand, hedonistic utilitarians ordinarily refer to the loss of pleasure suffered by the victim. Nonetheless, this argument is not always accepted due to the Epicurean argument against the badness of death. Additionally, they can also allude to indirect reasons such as: (1) The effects on the loved ones of the victim. (2) The effect on the rest of the members of society. And (3) the loss of net pleasure in the …show more content…
I was troubled by the Epicurean argument that death does not harm us (not animals, not humans). Whilst the practical implications of this position are also quite counter-intuitive, the argument is powerful. However, I believe that the deprivation account does a better job of accounting for the badness of death and therefore defended it in the first chapter.
Addressing the Epicurean argument was also indispensable to decide whether we can accept any direct hedonistic arguments against killing. If Epicurus was right, then the hedonistic utilitarians could only use indirect reasons to condemn the killing of innocents. Therefore, I considered that I needed to elucidate the badness of death prior discussing the morality of killing.
The second part of this section is concerned with the badness of death for non-human animals. It is also divided in two parts. On the one hand, I deal with general arguments that have been proposed to argue that death does not harm animals. These include, for instance, the position that one needs the concept of death to be harmed by it; or the idea that the harm of death depends on the victim holding preferences for its life as a
My thesis is concerned with the morality of killing animals in utilitarian ethics. The reason why this topic is interesting is that utilitarianism has a somewhat paradoxical position on animals. On the one hand, it is a moral theory extremely concerned with animal suffering. One its main tenants is the equal consideration of interests of all beings affected by the action. This principle requires us to value equal interests equally, regardless of who is the holder of the interest. This leads to a radical position on animal suffering: human and non-human suffering is given equal importance, as long as the interest in avoiding the suffering is equally strong. On the other hand, utilitarianism generally holds what has been considered a …show more content…
It can be divided into other questions, such as, what is wrong about killing, or is death bad for animals?
In regards to the morality of killing in utilitarian ethics, it is important to consider the different versions of utilitarianism. In the case of preference utilitarianism, the wrongness of killing depends on whether it thwarts the victim preferences about her life and future. On the other hand, hedonistic utilitarians ordinarily refer to the loss of pleasure suffered by the victim. Nonetheless, this argument is not always accepted due to the Epicurean argument against the badness of death. Additionally, they can also allude to indirect reasons such as: (1) The effects on the loved ones of the victim. (2) The effect on the rest of the members of society. And (3) the loss of net pleasure in the …show more content…
I was troubled by the Epicurean argument that death does not harm us (not animals, not humans). Whilst the practical implications of this position are also quite counter-intuitive, the argument is powerful. However, I believe that the deprivation account does a better job of accounting for the badness of death and therefore defended it in the first chapter.
Addressing the Epicurean argument was also indispensable to decide whether we can accept any direct hedonistic arguments against killing. If Epicurus was right, then the hedonistic utilitarians could only use indirect reasons to condemn the killing of innocents. Therefore, I considered that I needed to elucidate the badness of death prior discussing the morality of killing.
The second part of this section is concerned with the badness of death for non-human animals. It is also divided in two parts. On the one hand, I deal with general arguments that have been proposed to argue that death does not harm animals. These include, for instance, the position that one needs the concept of death to be harmed by it; or the idea that the harm of death depends on the victim holding preferences for its life as a