Examples Of Negative Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory that holds that we must act in a way that generates as much happiness in the world as possible. This theory holds three most important principles: First, what is good for people is that the amount of happiness (or the satisfaction of desires) is as high as possible. Second, in general, what is better is that the total of happiness is as high as possible. Third, we must act in a way that increases the total of happiness. Based on those principles, there is a point of view is called negative utilitarianism, a particular form of utilitarianism that does not focus on the total sum of well-being and suffering, but in minimizing the total amount of suffering. The position of utilitarians is that, since the function …show more content…
As sentient beings have a natural interest in not suffering. So moral consideration does not depend on who can reason morally but in whom can suffer. Morality is a matter of the interests of sensitive beings, and therefore it is unfair to exclude non-human animals. Animals have moral value and deserve thoughtfulness because they can experience pain.

According to utilitarianism, the welfare of each must count. If in our moral decisions we do not consider the interests of someone who has positive or negative experiences, then we are not considering the total of happiness. This means that discrimination against non-human sensitive animals, which have positive or negative experiences or preferences, is incompatible with a theory such as utilitarianism. This approach must consider every part of suffering and every part of happiness, which involves considering both the experiences of nonhuman animals and those of humans. For this reason, early utilitarian theorists, such as J. Bentham or J.S. Mill advocated moral consideration of nonhuman animals. They claimed that their interests should be respected to the same extent as …show more content…
If human beings have rights corresponding to their capabilities, why other beings do not have equal rights according to their abilities? The right to live, apart from other considerations, is a human right by its nature as an animal alive. (Of course even this right has conditions like preservation of society, self-defense, etc.) So, how an animal should live in captivity when this activity practiced in a human being is evidently a fail of his fundamentals rights and considered a crime against humanity. In this case, again there are scientific reasons to keep an animal in captivity such as species preservation or animals incapable of surviving in a wild environment. For example, animals which have been maintained in captivity cannot be freed in their environments because their surviving could be affected. i.e., animals which have not developed their instincts to survive are no capable of living in wild conditions. Then actually keeping an animal in captivity for reasons that are scientifically acceptable and which benefit the preservation of species or even the life of a single animal because of its condition is justifiable. However, I reject that an animal in wild condition is captured, extracted from its habitat and exhibited for mere diversion. It is practically a kidnapping of a being that expresses its unhappiness with acts that science itself affirms as