Examples Of Negative Utilitarianism

Amazing Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    So instead of using the term “animal rights,” people should use the term “animal welfare.” Animals don’t have the same rights or even close to the same rights as us humans. Animal welfare states that we know that animals may be used for certain purposes but shouldn’t be mistreated or abused. Some people say that animals behave selfishly, and only look out for themselves and their own interests. Since animals don’t behave morally they don’t deserve to be treated morally by human beings. If we want animals to have rights like us humans then that means we can’t breed or kill them for…

    • 1066 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Animals do have rights to a certain extent. Animals have the right not be mistreated and used by humans. Indirect duty means that we don’t have direct duties to animals, but we do have duties about animals. So torturing an animal is wrong because it harms the animal not because it upsets other humans. Direct duty means that we have a direct duty to not be harmful, but kind to animals.…

    • 464 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    This means that the human-created notion of a right can only apply to humans. Therefore, animals have no rights, but humans still have an obligation to treat animals properly. In an effort to make the wording more concise, the term “animal” will refer to all animals (Kingdom Animalia) other than humans. A right can be defined as a moral requirement that aims to better the life of an individual. Rights can provide protections…

    • 1642 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In addition, the idea of sacrificing the welfare of animals to advance the welfare of humans is flawed in that it necessarily places more weight on the rights of humans, which violates the deontological view on the rights of sentient beings. If even just one individual could be sacrificed to improve the welfare of hundreds or thousands of other individuals, it would not erase the moral transgression committed in violating the rights of the sacrificed…

    • 1221 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    “If he is not to stifle his own feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals”. Thus, it is in the self-interest of humanity to treat animals humanely. Kant’s view was that we should avoid pointless cruelty to animals, and since animals are here only to serve man, causing animal suffering is justified whenever it suits our interests. Conversely, animals do have the right to live without cruelty and abuse, and it is our obligation to make sure these things do not occur.…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Despite these differences, they vigorously campaign for equal treatment despite their gender, race or sexual orientation (Singer 1). In this regard, Singer calls for humans to give animals ' fair consideration too despite their mental incapability. Less intelligence shouldn 't be viewed as a basis to discriminate against animals. This is because a variance in the level of intelligence in human beings is acceptable to society. Hence, there is no reason why humans shouldn 't tolerate lesser intelligence in animals.…

    • 1134 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    To not harm is a moral obligation. That is, to cause harm from the direct consequences of one’s own actions is morally reprehensible and must be avoided. This does not, however, impose a moral obligation to mitigate harm where it may exist if it should fall from the hands of others. For example, the act of helping—though morally good—is not a moral obligation. This is derived from envisioning a system in which every human helps one another in every achievable scenario.…

    • 807 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    They think that if a being is capable to suffer, they gain the entry to the moral community. In this view animals and human being (included marginal human being) have the equal right to be part of the moral sphere. It is not new that this two ideologies differ one of another. We must take in account that Kant disagree with other important consequentialist claims. To conclude, this paper had the purpose of discuss, compare and contrast utilitarianism’s and Kant’s respective theories.…

    • 880 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Moreover, animals should be treated with the same moral respect as any other living thing. Moral equality is distinct from factual equality. Singer states, "Otherwise it would be nonsense to talk to the equality of human…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Sentience is defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary as ‘feeling or sensation distinguished from perception and thought’. Animal rights advocates often describe sentience as the ability to suffer. Sentience is important in animal rights because it is the main determinant for whether a being has interests and rights. If a being is not sentient, it cannot suffer and does not have rights. Beings have rights to prevent society and individuals from causing undue suffering to each other, but without sentience, an object such as a table or a lamp is not injured by unfair or unjust treatment.…

    • 2293 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Decent Essays