Utilitarianism on Animal Rights - Essay Example

John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism on Animal Rights The fact remains that “we eat animals everyday, [and that] Tyson, the largest meat processor in the country, slaughters 222,000 heads of cattle a week, the equivalent of 1,321 an hour, seven days a week” (Lappe). Nevertheless, humans justify these acts of cruelty to animals for the simple reason that humans need meat for sustenance. Although that seems logical enough, slaughtering of animals in other places would involve “stabbing [sheep] through the eye with a long screwdriver and skinning live sheep and goats” (Hartwell). Now this seems too brutal even to imagine. This is the reason why there are so many animal rights activists. The basis for animal rights therefore rests upon the idea that animals, just like humans, deserve to be treated humanely. Does this make sense and how does the subject of animal rights fare in ethics? Utilitarianism somehow sheds light on the validity of animal rights, especially the ideas of 19th century British philosopher John Stuart Mill. As utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, then it follows that utilitarian ethics teaches that the ends justify the moral worth of an action regardless of the means. If we were to defend animal rights on the basis of this principle, then we are to accept the fact that protection of animal rights will produce a good outcome and is therefore good. One benefit that can be derived from this is that “animal rights teach us that certain things are wrong as a matter of principle” (“Animal Rights,” BBC). This means that by recognizing animal rights, the society is taught that the virtues of respect, kindness and compassion are indeed existent and are universal, in that one is not supposed to limit the expression of these virtues to humans but also to animals. Moreover, the protection of animal rights will somehow force people to seek more human ways of treating them and to seek other alternatives to the task at hand before resorting to animal use. These sentiments are echoed in the following statement by German scientist Frank Gannon: An experiment that uses animals would be justifiable if it is done in such a way that causes minimal pain to the animals involved and if all possible alternative methods have been explored. (Gannon) Nevertheless, if one simply uses the idea “the ends justify the means” in defending utilitarian ethics vis-à-vis human rights, then one would be forced to recognize that animal rights somehow contradict the idea of human rights – especially the human right to eat animals. This means that if one takes the view of utilitarianism, then he would advocate the happiness of the greatest number of people; and if what can help bring about this happiness is the killing of animals for food, then animals must not have rights in the point of view of utilitarian ethics. A number of people argue that animals must indeed be sacrificed for the benefit of humans. In fact, for Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez of the Santa Clara University Ethics Department, “If we had to choose between saving a drowning baby and saving a drowning rat, we would surely save the baby” (Andre & Velasquez). Nevertheless, it is John Stuart Mill’s concept of utilitarianism that actually defends animal rights. For Mill, utilitarianism is all about the greatest happiness principle, which advocates “an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments” (Mill 412). Nevertheless, this self-explanatory statement presupposes “a standard of morality “secured to all mankind; and not to them only, but, so far as the nature of things admits, to the whole sentient creation” (412). Although indirectly, Mill therefore promotes animal rights without even implying that the welfare of humans must be above those of animals. When Mill states that morality should encompass “the whole sentient creation,” he obviously includes animals. Considering that utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, what then, according to Mill, is the good outcome that is to result from this advocacy of animal rights? It is happiness – but “not the agent’s own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether” (412). Why then a collective happiness instead of individual happiness? The reason is that, for Mill, “[man as] a being of higher faculties requires more to make him happy” and that he necessarily possesses “a sense of dignity” and “nobleness of character” (410; 412). Therefore, for Mill, a man of higher faculties, which the philosopher considers to be higher than those with lower faculties, must necessarily possess “higher levels” of happiness. This higher being does not rejoice in animals being brutally murdered or even used as subjects for experiments, for this higher being naturally and necessarily recognizes that “the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard is not the agent’s own happiness but that of all concerned” (417). Furthermore, the higher being acknowledges that “‘to love your neighbor as yourself’ [constitutes] the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality” (417). Based on the aforementioned statements, Mill is therefore implying that a higher being, or a man of dignity and noble character, can be truly happy only when everyone and everything else around him is happy, including animals. It therefore follows that Mill’s utilitarianism promotes animal rights. There are a number of organizations in the world today that follows through the ethical principles that Mill has founded. In the United States, the International Society for Animal Rights in Pennsylvania is one of the strongest agencies that promote animal rights and having been chartered nearly 50 years ago, ISAR is “one of the oldest humane education organizations” in the country (“Action Alerts,” ISAR). The organization provides lawyers for the defense of animals and the protection of their rights, as well as conducts events such as the 2011 International Homeless Animals’ Day on August 20 of this year. This was participated in by 38 states and 18 foreign countries (“Action Alerts,” ISAR). Aside from the United States, Trinidad and Tobago is another country that promotes animal rights but especially through formulation of laws that will require punishment. Section 79 of the Summary Offences Act of the country states that: “Any person who cruelly beats, ill-treats, starves, overdrives, overloads, abuses, tortures or otherwise maltreats any animal is liable to a fine of $400 of to imprisonment for two months” (Dassrath). Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Animal Rights by UNESCO in Paris on October 15, 1978 not only paved the way for the humane treatment of animals but also, although unconsciously, for the affirmation and advocacy of Mill’s utilitarian ethics (“Universal Declaration”). Works Cited “Action Alerts.” 2011. International Society for Animal Rights. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Andre, Claire and Velasquez, Manuel. “Of Cures and Creatures Great and Small.” n.d. Ethics Home Page. Santa Clara University. Web. 7 Sept 2010. “Animal Rights.” 2011. Ethics. BBC. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Dassrath, Melissa. “12 Cases of Animal Abuse in TT Monthly.” 2008. Features. Trinidad & Tobago’s Newday: The People’s Newspaper. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Gannon, Frank. “Animal rights, human wrongs?” EMBO Reports 8 (2010): 519-520. Nature.com. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Hartwell, Sarah. “Cats – Friend or Food?” 2010. Cat Resource Archive. Messybeast.com. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Lappe, Anna. “143 Million Pounds of Beef Recalled – Will the Industry Finally Change?” 2008. Huffington Post. Peninsula Peace and Justice Center. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Mill, John Stuart. “Utilitarianism.” Ten Great Works of Philosophy. Ed. Robert Paul Wolff. New York: Penguin Books Ltd., 1969. Print. “Universal Declaration of Animal Rights.” 2010. Informations. Network Schweiz – Brasil. Web. 7 Sept 2010. Read More