Utilitarianism: Do Animals Deserve Moral Consideration?

Animals are seen as objects as oppose to living beings that deserve to make an ends of themselves. There are objectors, such as Kant, a deontologist that believes that animals do not deserve moral consideration because they have no intrinsic value such as rationality and autonomy. Since objectors like Kant believe that animals do not think for themselves or think in a logical way they hold another objection, that nonhuman animals are unable to respect others rights or show moral reciprocity within their community. The Principle of Utilitarianism best explains why animals deserve moral consideration equal to that we owe humans, because similarly to humans they too are able to experience pain and pleasure. I will show that my argument is a good one by explaining and examining the utilitarian view as well as the …show more content…
Animals also contribute to the greater happiness because they have the ability to affect our happiness. In a domesticated way, animals can increase our happiness by providing us comfort, entertainment, a source of food, and clothing. However, the majority of this relationship is symbiotic in which humans are the ones that are benefiting, only slightly increasing the overall happiness. When animals are used as objects it makes it easy for people to ignore their pain and overlook their happiness. Pain is a result of physical and mental harm that can lead to suffering. Pleasure is a state of enjoyment and can lead to happiness. Morality to a utilitarian is about creating the greater happiness, and according to Pete singer “…the point of morality is the happiness of beings in this world, … [and we] are required to do what is necessary to promote that happiness.”(100). In this case, we are required to not use animals as objects and to show them moral respect similar to the respect we show