Animal Utilitarianism

1003 Words5 Pages

ANIMAL FARM Human beings have a positive obligation toward animals; we have a moral obligation to help them and protect them from the harm of others. Animals possess the ability to experience pleasure and pain and interpret those feelings while applying them to the actors responsible for the aforementioned experiences. Because of this higher logical ability, we have an obligation to factor the experiences of animals into the calculation of Utilitarianism. For greater clarity, Utilitarianism is the theory that the morally correct action is the one that will result in the greatest amount of pleasure (Mill 1861: pg. 38). Under the philosophical theory of Utilitarianism, human beings have a positive moral obligation toward animals. In Immanuel …show more content…

The requirement for garnering a positive moral obligation is the ability to judge. 5. Therefore, human beings do have a duty to animals. Kant argues that human beings do not have any moral obligation to animals because animals do not have the ability to judge people for their actions. Upon further inspection of defining judgement, it is clear that animals possess the ability to judge, and human beings do, in fact, have a duty to them. The Utilitarian view argues that people ought to perform the action that results in the most amount of pleasure, and I would argue that because of their ability to judge and apply their experiences of pleasure and pain to human beings, animals ought to be considered when calculating this ‘greatest happiness.’ While they may not have higher cognitive abilities, they do have pleasure, pain, and the ability to remember what beings and people are the source of those experiences. If animals have the ability to experience and interpret these feelings, human beings ought to protect them and work for their best interests, especially considering the fact that they lack the ability to advocate for …show more content…

Animals have the ability to experience pleasure and pain, furthermore, they have the ability to interpret and ascribe the meaning of these feeling toward other beings whom they deem the cause of the experiences. Kant, along with other Philosophers would argue that have a moral obligation or duty because of their difference in ability to reason with higher contemplation. An adage that has been ascribed to Albert Einstein states that “if you judge a fish on its ability to climb a tree it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.” While animals do have differing abilities from human beings, they deserve equal consideration and their pleasure and pain are worthy of consideration. All arguments considered, human beings do have a moral obligation to consider the pleasure and pain of animals based on their ability to feel and interpret

Show More
Open Document