Resolved: Justice requires the recognition of animal rights.

Value: Justice because the resolved gives us what we are trying to accomplish in today’s debate which is Justice, my case will be focused on accomplishing the resolved, and therefore I must choose Justice as my value which means the quality of being fair and reasonable.

Criteria: Utilitarianism which refers to the most good for the most living creatures. When it comes to matters of the treatment of all living creatures, it is important to make a choice based on the option that is the most fair and reasonable, which can be determined by utilitarianism.

Definitions according to Oxford Dictionaries:
Require – specify as compulsory.
Recognition – acknowledgment of somethings existence, validity, or legality.

and my final definition which may be the most vital in today’s debate is:

Animal Rights – Rights believed to belong to animals to live free from use in medical research, hunting, and other services to humans.

If you put this all together, to affirm this resolved is to say that all humans should be legally obliged to not hunt animals or use them for medical research. I will tell you why this is wrong in my following contentions

1: We Must Test on Animals for Medical Purposes
Sub Point 1:
If we were to require the recognition of animal rights, multiple human lives would be lost because medicine would not be tested. Since diseases are constantly evolving, not producing new medicine would mean a new pandemic every time a new strain of disease comes into existence. It is a small exchange to hurt a few animals to protect millions of human lives from even worse suffering. According to the National Academies Press, “By infecting animals with certain microbes, Koch, Pasteur, and other researchers were able to identify the germs causing anthrax, rabies, diphtheria, and plague. These discoveries have allowed scientists to develop vaccines for animals and people made from weakened germs. “ These tests gave way to the salvation of millions of people.

Sub Point 2:
Furthermore, many surgical advancements arise from the testing on animals. According to the NAP, Organ transplants and coronary artery bypasses require that blood vessels be sewn together. The technique of sewing blood vessels together was developed through surgeries on dogs and cats by Alexis Carrel, for which he was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1912. Carrel tested on dogs and cats because these organs had a chance of being rejected and the animals had a chance of dying. The whole world, knowing the consequences of the testing on those dogs and cats tested on, decided that Carrel’s research was worthy of a Nobel Prize.

2: The affirming of this resolved would eliminate animal services such as the police K-9 unit.  
This is because the definition of animal rights includes living free from other services to humans, and therefore the K-9 sector of our executive branch would be nullified.
According to the the El Dorado California Police Department and agreed upon by Police Departments across the US, Police service dogs are currently being used nationwide for high risk searches for suspects hiding in buildings or areas, tracking, search and rescue locating victims, jail/prison systems officer protection and cell extraction of inmates, evidence detection, narcotic detection, explosive detection, accelerant detection, disaster search locating victims, human remains detection, locating victims of avalanches, locating suspects for Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) and lately, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) detection.
As you can see, these K-9’s entire lives are spent as a service to humans, but it is completely worth it.

3: The affirmation of this resolved would eliminate hunting, causing societal chaos.
In almost every society, meat is used as a source of food. In some, meat is necessary for survival, especially in areas of harsh climate where plants don’t grow abundantly. These societies would be forced to abandon their hunting and move to a less extreme climate, causing overpopulation and unnecessary conflict. Furthermore, societies which contain a population of people who’s economy is based around the meat industry would be crushed because an entire sector of the economy would be eliminated at once. Farmers would be out of luck, and all of the people involved with the production and transportation of meat would be forced to find a new lively hood.

It is vital, in order to be fair and reasonable, for people to be able to hunt, use animals for law enforcement and transportation, and above all to be used for medical testing. For all these reasons I stand in firm NEGATION of today’s resolved.

Cover of On Liberty (Broadview Literary Texts)

John Stuart Mill was a philosopher of a great intellect with enormous learning capabilities. From an early age he had been educated by his father, James Mill, who was the leader of a group of intellectuals which adopted Jeremy Bentham’s ideology of utility. He developed a liking for politics and was elected Member of Parliament for Westminster in 1865 until 1868. During this time he gave parliamentary speeches proposing radical liberal reforms.

His essay: ‘On Liberty’ was written in a period of great social change in which traditional values and beliefs were in decline and there were no new ones to take their place. He describes this period as being ‘a critical one’, meaning ‘a period … of criticism and negation, in which mankind lose their old convictions without acquiring any new ones’ (Mill 1873 pp.171). During that age, mankind condemned absolutism. Peasant insurrections and artisan uprisings occurred throughout the continent. The bad harvest of grains and the shortage of food were the crucial elements in the reshaping of Europe because people wanted changes to be made at the highest level. Students protested in Budapest and Prague for a free press, trial by jury, and a representative assembly; demands that were radical at that time, but in accordance with Mill’s theories. New states had emerged and the old ones had redrawn their borders.

On that account, Mill considered that ‘another, more advanced creed’ would bring the peace and the changes that people want (Mill 1873 pp.171). That creed would be a liberal-utilitarian system of belief, which would offer a high grade of liberty to the individual in conjunction with a system of rules and moral codes created specifically to establish a state of happiness for the public. (Riley 1998 pp.4) The main problem on which his essay revolves around is the extent of the liberty of man and the legitimacy of the power exercised by society over him.

He emphasised that every society needs a ruler, even if his power is dangerous, it is also necessary in order to maintain some control over the citizens. Those who do not comply with the rules are punished by the exertion of power of constrain, but who should stop the monarch if he abuses it? Mill says that ‘By liberty was meant protection against the tyranny of the political ruler’ (1859. pp.59) suggesting that people should have a way of limiting his power. This has been attempted by two means: first by obtaining the recognition of certain immunities called political rights which if infringed, resistance or general rebellion was justifiable. Secondly, the establishment of constitutional checks from a representative body was needed in order to give the people power to decide or to give consent in important acts of the process of governing. Most of the time however, the people exercising power were not like those over whom it was exercised and with the method of governing being ‘each for all the rest’ (Mill 1859. pp.62) the possibility of a tyrannical majority coming to power was high.

From that position they can use public authorities to overwhelm the population, but when they are reflecting the citizens it becomes a problem. Society’s means of coercion are not restricted to functionaries. It can impose rules of conduct through law or opinion therefore manipulating the people. For Mill, the liberty of the press is a very important factor in a society because that is the means through which information travels fastest and it can be used to expose tyranny. No government that is one with the people, or not, should impose their view or their beliefs through press or through any other way. Each individual has the right to an opinion which may not be silenced on the emphasis that it is wrong; because no judgement is infallible so that it can state with absolute certainty if a concept is true or not. Suppressing an opinion determines the denial of its validity and if it is valid, such an act is equivalent to robbery because ‘it deprives people of the chance to exchange error for truth’. In Mill’s view, ‘judgement is given to men that they may use it’ (1859. pp.75-80), therefore an individual must not be constrained just because he might act erroneously; nor can an opinion be silenced just because people can interpret it wrong. They have the right to hear and discuss both sides of an argument in order to create an opinion on behalf of which they are free to act as long as it is at their own expense and risk.

In his essay, Mill emphasises the importance of actions because they should not be as free as opinion and even so, if one incites people to terrible acts which harm others, the exertion of the power of constraint is perfectly justifiable (Mill 1859.pp.119-120). Harm is the main principle in ‘On Liberty’. This is the only limitation to the freedom of an individual; the only reason for which power can be exercised in a rightful manner over a member of society. In matters that only concern him, the individual has absolute independence; he is sovereign over himself. But this concept applies only to mature people. On this particular subject, Mill differentiates the reasons of punishment by law and punishment by opinion; just because the acts of one individual may be hurtful to others or wanting to be, without going to the length of violating their rights there is no need for punishment by law (Mill 1859.pp.141-144). The opinion advocated against that act is considered sufficient punishment. This is a concept easy to comprehend. Mill stated that people can and will use this in their daily interactions with others.

The liberties defended in his book come from the author’s utilitarian background. They are not of divine right or under moral obligation of the rulers. Mill argues that they are designed to bring direct benefits to every individual, who will help society to progress in all its areas: education, culture etc. This leaves room for critics to say that economic differences can constrain members from attending all of the gatherings that may lead to new ideas and discoveries. Mill acknowledges that some individuals will prosper more than others and that brings the main criticism of social inequality into light. These gray parts of his work will continually be questioned because they are relevant to the understanding of liberalism; but over the years, liberal intellectuals have tried to find ways through which to cover the gaps that modern society found in Mill’s theory.

Bibliography

Cowie, L.W. et al. (1969) European History – Europe 1789-1939.

Bristol: Western Printing Services

Johnston, I. (1999) Lecture notes on Mill’s On Liberty [online resource] Available at: http://records.viu.ca/~johnstoi/introser/mill2.htm  [Accessed: 08.11.2010]

Mill, John Stuart. (Ed.) (1859) On Liberty, intro by Himmelfarb, G. 1974 England: Clays Ltd, St Ives plc

Mill, John Stewart. (1873) Autobiography Reprint: 1960.

Columbia: Columbia University Press

Mill, John Stewart. (2002) A System of Logic Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific

Riley, J. (1998) Mill on Liberty, [electronic resource], Florence, KY, USA: Routledge, URL: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/coventry/Doc?id=5003276&ppg=21

Introduction

The justification of decisions has always been a conflict between the ends and the means. Humans struggle with this concept because morality affects our actions. The sense of right and wrong is ever present and is the basis for what ethics are. Utilitarianism and Kantian ethics are two different types of decision based ethical systems that are compared and contrasted throughout this article.

The Idea in a Nutshell

Utilitarianism is an ethical theory stating that the right decision is one that maximizes the overall good of society. The founder of this theory being unknown, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are considered to be the most influential contributors. Bentham described this principle as “the greatest happiness”. On the other side of the ring lies the principle of Kantian ethics. Kantianism is the theory of the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. Kantianism is a rational process based upon right and wrong and how we perceive things as being morally appropriate.

The 10 Things You Need to Know About Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics

1.    Utilitarian decisions are based on results. Whatever choice produces the greatest happiness or utility is the best choice. If the greatest possible utility is not achieved, then it is morally wrong. Greatest overall happiness should be sought from the decision for anyone directly or indirectly affected.

Image via Wikipedia

2.    Kantian decisions are based on motives. Decisions are moral based on a person’s will or intent of acting. Actions are not based on the consequences but rather on the person’s will during the acting. Rationality is the ultimate good and all people are fundamentally rational beings.

Image via Wikipedia

3.    Utilitarians look at the bigger picture. The idea encompasses the philosophy of the greatest good for the greatest amount. Motives must be disregarded. The action must be disassociated from the actor. Presidents often need to be defined as utilitarian. It is necessary to engage in actions where the positive outcomes outweigh the negative consequences for society as a whole.

4.    Kantians focus on small details as well as the big picture. This is an individualistic approach that ensures that moral obligations are fulfilled no matter the consequences. Minorities and individuals cannot be overlooked. The formulation rule of Kantianism states, “Act so that you always treat others as an end and never as a means to an end only.”

5.    Utilitarianism produces happiness. An act is only morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved. The basic building block of this principle is the idea of creating the greatest good for the greatest amount. Many favor the utilitarian approach because it offers more favorable outcomes than a Kantian approach.

6.    Kantianism brings forth the greater good. Actions under this principle are performed for the sake of duty. Duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for universal law. Only actions performed in accordance with duty have moral worth. The greater a person’s disinclination to act in accordance with duty, the greater the action’s moral worth. Morality in this sense is a struggle against one’s emotional inclinations.

7.    Utilitarianism is subjective and individual. There is no universal set of rules to base morality, therefore each situation must be judged individually. Weighing consequences to maximize utility can be lengthy and time-consuming.

8.    Kantianism is more universal. Kantian ethics rely on a maxim which is a universal principle that can be applied consistently to everyone in similar situations. The maxim underlies actions and judges these to be good or bad solely on how they conform to reason. To avoid skepticism, Kantian ethics must have no exceptions and be applicable to all human beings.

9.    Utilitarian ethics view consequences as everything. The good and bad consequences must be heavily weighed before a decision can be made. The total good consequences must outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, the action is morally proper. Since there is no given rule to follow, the consequence is the sole basis for the utilitarian philosophy of ethics.

10.    Kantian ethics view consequences as nothing. If the consequences of an action are not the best, one is still required to fulfill that obligation because it’s their duty. The consequences of an act do not contribute to the moral worth of the act. Kant reasoned that the physical world is outside humans’ full control and thus humans can’t be held accountable for events that occur in it.

The Video Lounge

3:55-6:00 [clip extract]

This clip is from a BBC documentary about a kidnapping and murder that occurred in 2002. The second half of the clip discusses whether Kantian or Utilitarian ethics would have been more effective to use on the kidnapper to obtain information from him. The information looking to be obtained was all hypothetical but the general concept is still very informative.

My Take

The debate between these two very important views of ethics will always be present in the corporate world as well as society in general. I personally believe the Utilitarian approach to ethics is more practical but can never be used as a universal medium on which others can base their decisions upon. I think it is up to managers and employees to pick the approach that can more successfully answer the questions and solve the problems that are faced in the business world of today.

References

1. Allison, H. E. (2004). Kant’s transcendental idealism (Rev. and enl. ed.). New Haven: Yale University Press.
2. Banham, G. (2003). Kant’s practical philosophy: from critique to doctrine. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
3. Kant: Morality. (n.d.). Philosophy pages. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5i.htm
4. KANTIAN ETHICS. (n.d.). Sacramento state. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/Kantian%20Ethics.htm
5. Sandel, M. (n.d.). The Ethics of Torture: Kantian v. Utilitarian Reasoning. YouTube. Retrieved September 11, 2011, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0×1h5JbhNwk

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Contact Information

To contact the author of “Top 10 Management on Utilitarian and Kantian Ethics,” please email John Edmund Sencial III at esencial3@gmail.com.

About the Publisher

David C. Wyld (dwyld.kwu@gmail.com) is the Robert Maurin Professor of Management at Southeastern Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana. He is a management consultant, researcher/writer, and executive educator. His blog, Wyld About Management, can be viewed at http://wyldaboutmanagement.blogspot.com/. He also serves as the Director of the Reverse Auction Research Center (http://reverseauctionresearch.com/), a hub of research and news in the expanding world of competitive bidding. Dr. Wyld also maintains compilations of his student’s publications regarding:

• management concepts (http://toptenmanagement.blogspot.com/)
• book reviews (http://wyld-about-books.blogspot.com/) and
• international foods (http://wyld-about-food.blogspot.com/).    

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The theory of Utilitarianism can be simply summed up by “the greatest good for the greatest number”. It is choosing the action which will lead to the greatest amount of total happiness – and this is the morally correct action. Since first being devised by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1932) it has become increasingly popular and is one of the most widely used ethical positions. Christian morality on the other hand is a term which can be used on many different levels. There are many denominations of Christianity, meaning that their views on some particular subjects will differ– however they all essentially believe in several traditional common beliefs which could be regarded as Christian Morality. I will be looking at whether Utilitarianism is compatible with these beliefs or not.

One of the most common beliefs is that of the Ten Commandments. Ten Rules which if followed will allow everybody to live a good and honest life in the eyes of God, also allowing them to pursue the path to heaven. For example “You shall not murder.” Under Christian rule this commandment would never be broken as it is an act against God (a sin). Looking at this from a Utilitarian perspective you would also not kill, as it would be against the interests of the majority – causing emotional pain to those who knew the person. So here we can see that Utilitarianism is compatible in certain situations. Christian Morality bases itself around generally being a “good person” – giving to charity, helping others when they are in need, and upholding your principles from the Bible. For example you are walking down the street and you get asked to make a donation to charity, according to Christian morality making this donation (however small) is the good thing to do. If in this situation we are to use Utilitarianism we would also most likely make the donation, as it is for “greater good”, in other words the £1 you donate will give more benefit to others than what it would for yourself. However this raises the question of what exactly is the ‘greater good’? Bentham said that whenever anyone has to decide on the right or wrong course of action they ask themselves, “What is the most useful thing to do in this situation?” What they are actually doing is deciding which decision will lead them to the greatest pleasure; he called this the principle of Utility. He goes on to say “By the principle of Utility is meant that property of any object , whereby it tends to produce benefit , advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness or to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party concerned”. In this case the person may see the greater good of being the fact that the £1 will help somebody less fortunate than themselves, or they may see themselves keeping the £1 to be for the greater good.

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) made slight revisions to Bentham’s theory. He disliked Bentham’s Hedonic Calculus, which focused very much on quantifying pleasure; he believed the quality of pleasure was a vital factor that had to be taken into account also. Mill states “To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself constitutes the perfection of utilitarian morality.” “Utilitarianism captures the very essence of the Golden Rule.” This may be true for some cases, but again it depends upon what the “greatest good” is. Here is another possible situation. For example a rich businessman is on his way to a meeting which could potentially mean his company gaining a lot of money, but on his way to this meeting he encounters an elderly woman who is seriously injured on the ground. The Christian way of dealing with this situation would be to help the old lady straight away (The Golden Rule). However for the Utilitarian it is harder to judge what he may do. Following the ethic of “the greatest good for the greatest number”, he may ignore the old lady and head straight for his meeting. Not doing so would mean that all the shareholders at the meeting would suffer as a result, in his eyes the company would suffer more than the old lady. However this all depends on what you see as being “the greatest good”. Who would be receiving the greatest pain in this situation is subjective, the old ladies pain or the pain of those at the meeting? I do realise that in reality most people would stop to help the lady simply because of their instinct, however it still displays a point. The problem with Utilitarianism is that as everybody has a different view on what is good and bad there will therefore always be instances when anything can be justified. Any ethic that allows for ‘subjective’ or ‘different views’ will allow that person to justify just about anything they want. Whereas with absolutist theories this cannot be done.  

The beliefs of Christian Morality are all firmly absolutist beliefs. Utilitarianism can allow for almost anything to be justified, whereas many Christian beliefs will not. John Stuart Mill even claimed that Utilitarianism could be used in order to justify slavery. We know that slavery is not a good thing, as it causes suffering – Mill says “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good, in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, so impeded our attempts to get it.” Although we know slavery is not morally correct, it does allow us to have pleasure through the hedonic calculus, as having work done for free means that we can enjoy an easier life. 

INTRODUCTION

A subject area somewhat neglected online is philosophy. That statement may surprise you. 

For many who haven’t studied the subject, philosophy is easily confused with religion. It isn’t. Philosophy can involve much reflection on religious issues, and philosophers have been both highly religious, as with St. Anselm, Augustine, Bishop Berkeley, Descartes, etc, and atheistic, as with David Hume, Nietzsche or Sartre.

ORIGINS OF PHILOSOPHY AMONG THE PRE-SOCRATATICS

Philosophy is about ordered thinking and systematic reasoning – it is the art of arguing a case to make it watertight and complete. The history of philosophy began with a single question posed by a man called Thales (585 BCE) who asked What the entire Universe consists of.

Answers posed by Thales and his contemporaries, the first of the Pre-Socratics, centred on the four elements, Earth, Air, Fire & Water. Some felt water was the predominant element, after all, earth was just watery mud, compacted, ice was solid water, all life depended on water supplies, blood was red water, etc. Others argued similar cases for the other elements, and eventually the case came down to atomicists, trying to define the basic building blocks on which all in existence depends.

Where religion was speculative, and often fired by imagination, philosophy had to be consistent, orderly and as free from contradiction and internal flaw as possible. The arguments moved from just contemplating the nature of what everything was made of to debates on the best political systems for a nation, the rights of individuals, the nature of art (aesthetics), and much more besides.

The Pre-Socratics became very orderly rationalists indeed, and highly disciplined. Mathematics became a central element of philosophical reasoning – many philosophers saw maths as the most perfect reasoning instrument. Its laws were very difficult to dispute. Pythagoras (c570-430 BCE) developed highly sophisticated mathematical systems of thought, which are still essential in geometry, trigonometry, physics, and all sciences to this day. Another famous Pre-Socratic was Xenophanes, a contemporary of Pythagoras, who argued that there is no reason why we should assume that God Made man in God’s image for if a cow could draw it might depict God as a cow. A horse would worship equine gods, etc.

THE GIANTS – PLATO, SOCRATES AND ARISTOTLE

With Socrates, (c. 469-399 BCE) Plato (c. 428-348 BCE), and Aristotle, the history of philosophy really gets going. The history of philosophy has often been defined as a series of footnotes to Plato.

Socrates never wrote anything down. We mainly know of him through Plato, Aristotle and Aristophanes (the latter was more of a dramatist than a philosopher). Socrates was an intense and brooding thinker, who would often get entranced by his own thinking and become totally immovable. Even during a battle (he had been a soldier in his youth). He was seen in mid-battlefield, completely lost in some chain of thought.

In Plato’s books, Socrates rarely presents his own arguments. He usually listens closely while some other philosopher gives his views on art, politics, or the nature of Justice, etc. Socrates then takes that argument apart, line-by-line, until the case presented to him crumbles into an illogical heap. This method was known as Dialectics. It is a form of argument that needs people to actually listen to one another. Nowadays, in arguments and especially on TV debates, we see people get highly emotive and simply interrupt one another so the argument is never finished.

Socrates would therefore find someone with a strong sense of justice or religious faith, and ask him or her what he or she understands justice or faith to mean. The arguer presents a case. Socrates then shows the reasoning to be flawed and effectively shows the student that they don’t understand the concepts at all.

Only in later dialogues, written after the death of Socrates, does Plato have Socrates presenting views of his own, which were almost certainly Plato’s views.

Plato’s metaphysics sees the Universe as a crude copy of a more perfect formal one – before the carpenter makes a chair, he sees the chair in his head – much is the same with the Gods. Our Universe, thanks to our deviating from course, is not the perfect match with the divine form universe created and envisaged, but it is our duty to make it as close to the form as possible.

A crucial key moment in the history of philosophy was the trial and execution of Socrates. Arrested with corrupting the young, who meant giving them the ability to question, doubt and argue against the authorities teachings of their masters, and bosses and parents, Socrates was obliged to die by hemlock poisoning. Philosophers since regarded him as a martyr to freedom of thought, expression, speech and dissent.

Aristotle (c. 384-322 BCE was a student of Plato’s, and the teacher of Alexander The Great. Despite many books available being attributed to him, he wrote nothing down and the books are the notes written by his students during his academy teaching classes. He differed from Plato in working up from what we have, rather than down from idealized forms. To Aristotle, the carpenter’s chair is an improvement on chairs he’s already seen and made. We progress from where we are. His approach was more scientific than Plato’s. Much of his work lists things as they are in all their variations. He is regarded as the first true zoologist for his derailed classification of animal species.

His cosmology set the Earth at the centre of the universe seeing all moving in circles round us – This became a major Christian doctrine until the age of Galileo, and even he was suppressed for presenting telescopic evidence of its denial.

HUMANISTS AND DIVINES

Early Christian scholars argued predominantly about the existence of God. In the Renaissance, a revival of interest in classical traditions arose from discoveries at Pompeii and other excavations in the Hellenic World. The universities divided into two overlapping schools, the Divinities and the Humanities. The latter school saw human nature as all-important, setting all else round man. The Divines set God as central to their disciplines.

Post-Reformation philosophers focussed on the divides in religious opinion, and began to argue for a more secular political State. Science became more empirical, that is to say, experiment and testing became more important than simply rationalizing a point of argument.

With so many arguing theologically about issues of transubstantiation, resurrection, the virgin birth, the nature of angels & archangels, etc, many were going so far as to reason that maybe God didn’t exist at all. The Aristotelian cosmology was proved false, the Churches were in schism. Kings reigning by divine right found their status challenged by republicanisms, and the age of reason spilled into the age of revolution & bloodshed. Philosophers changed the World.

UTILITARIANS, ATHEISTS AND SOCIALISTS

In the 19th century, more major changes arose. Two British Utilitarians, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill recognized that morality isn’t religiously motivated, i.e., that we don’t good because God says so. We do well because it moves us away from pain towards happiness. To the Utiltarians, the god is simply that “which brings the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.” This simple statement was open to criticism, and had major effect son religion and politics. It drew a question mark over the value of democracy in that a majority of happy people can benefit from the unhappiness of a minority. An election win with 51% of the vote leaves 49% of the electorate unhappy. Ten people could benefit from nine slaves, etc.

In religion, Utilitarianism was a non-religion based morality system. Making people happy was not rooted in divine commandments. Religionists had long argued that God is necessary to make us good, but Utiltarians torpedoed that notion in a trice.

Much philosophy was being taken over by other disciplines now, science and medicine were disciplines in their own right. Philosophy of the mind gave rise to psychology and psychiatry. The main areas philosophy still held mastery was in metaphysics and ethics.

Hegel’s theory that the world is shaped by the conflict and tensions between opposing forces was to have a devastating impact on thinking. Life is a struggle to overcome the mess made by everyone who went before us. Each philosopher starts by finding flaws in his predecessors, artist’s study the techniques of other artists and build on them. It was a student called Karl Marx who applied this thinking to the nature of industrial working relationships – the struggle to overcome the opposing forces being the class structure of society – politics became a conflict between Socialism / Communism and Capitalism.

With Darwin’s empirical findings on evolution, the final nail was laid into religion for many and the explosion of secular atheistic philosophers was a dominant force of 19th and 20th century thought. Nietzsche simply declared, “God is Dead.” Sartre and the existentialists examined with some pessimism what humans making all their own choices come down to. Without God or a devil, Sartre concluded, “Hell is other People.” (Huis Clos).

Logical Positivists like A J Ayer simply dismissed religion as a non-argument. Anything metaphysical, by its nature, or lack of it cannot be observed or experimented on or tested, so forget it. Deconstructionalists began to unravel language itself. Much of what we know, believe and take for granted is being unravelled in front of us. There could be no meaning underlying all.

Quite where philosophy can go from here is unknown, but it is not and never was to be confused with religion, There are obviously gaps in this introductory study, philosophers not mentioned, disciplines not defined or explained. Other essays here on my web site cover some of that ground, and for individual philosopher biographies, and works, just go to Wikipedia.

Arthur Chappell.

            You harvest the goodness of virtues into your work and working conditions surrounding you. You push yourself over the edge, so that you are useful to your master or boss. The characteristic of “usefulness” is determined by your freewill to do so, making yourself visible to the external (outside) condition. You never put your own internal condition above the external. Your exterior propels outwards; it never goes inward or passive. You choose to heighten yourself above others and earn their respect, because you work or labor hard. Your expectation from others is increased. The apparatus of society skyrockets exponentially and it is mechanized no one other than you and yourself.

            As you reach the maximum goal of output, input also increases to make demands meet.  You have become an object of a priori example. You look to export the traits of your own personality, and import at least some experiences from a resultant action. As knowledge and experiences increase, you look forward to next like a slave looking for work. The happiness heightens knowing that you prove the products and results to others. The only way to sink and drown in the happiness is during war-time, in which an intense experience is increased. Your a posterori decreases, until you crash at the bottom of class heritage. Socialism arose from the dust of a posterori, eventually pushing the pave way of a priori in organization of politics- even if the reductionist method is being used to decrease and deprive people (or citizens) of their livelihood and lives for the reason of their lack of usefulness. In socialism the resources are maximized out.

            It is during the revolutionary socialist transition that you find yourself useful for the good of privatization/public. It is the extreme utilitarianism at its peak. The ownership of production and distribution of products befell to the community, in which it gathers the individual human resource to push out its philosophical theory of systemization of collective mind as individual. Suddenly, you are no longer of importance to the community; instead, you control your own service like everyone else. The socialist machine has stabilized the equality between working class and elite working class, which create an imperfect system of utilitarianism, because you work for the same amount salary as others who do not work as much. This can also be contradictory: the others, who do not work as much, may be happier than those who work hard. It is this lack of transition that blockaded the ranks of service in utilitarianism. There is no individual, only “collective individual”, in a socialist system. You have become one with the whole pie of individual as a group.

            The happiness is, in theory, stable and equal for everyone in a socialist system. The higher the happiness, the better society turns out to be. The lower the happiness, the higher chance of flawed system is turned out to be. Individual consciousness of economy is not quite the same. You try and fight for more happiness and earn higher standard of living than others, yet it never came because of unproductive cycle that socialism offers. In capitalist view, however, you deserve the rewards of increased working hours, much unlike Marxist/socialist system. Finally, you do have some private ownership in capitalism, rather than handing over your ownership to the community in which you work hard for. It is in this opportunity that utilitarianism that brings you the happiness: free-market capitalist utilitarianism. In socialist model, you simply have no opportunity to exploit, as community controls everything. Utilitarianism is everything.

2011 © Jiri H. Stefanovich

Firstly, through research, Bentham concluded that people would naturally seek to avoid pain, thus he argued that good is that which equals the greatest pleasure and the least amount of pain for the greatest number of beings. Therefore, a right moral decision would be one that produced the greatest pleasure for a great number of people, and this is what makes Bentham’s theory Act Utilitarianism.

Interestingly, the idea that good is defined in the terms of pleasure makes utilitarianism of hedonistic theory too. Bentham proposed that we should tally the pleasure and pain which results from our action to determine of the action is morally right. According to Bentham, pleasure and pain are the only consequences in determining whether our conduct is moral.

Moreover, Bentham created the hedonic calculus to measure pain and pleasure sand this hedonic calculus was based on ancient hedonism. For Bentham, the most moral acts are those that maximise pleasure and minimise pain. Also, he believed that the hedonic calculus helped us choose the right or wrong thing to do as it calculated how pleasurable the consequence of the action was by measuring its length, intensity, certainty, remoteness, secureness , the chance of success, and most importantly, its extent. The hedonic calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action was good or not, and he believed that whatever is good or bad can be measured in a quantitive way.

In short, Bentham’s version of utilitarianism may be used to decide on the right course of action by seeing if the action provides pleasure and happiness for the greatest number of people, not just the individual doing the action. He also uses the hedonic calculus to aid in one’s decision of making the right choice and doing the right action.

John Stuart Mill

-(1861)
Normative ethics: theories that we ought to do morally. Moral issue analogy:
-Train tracks with a baby on one track and there is a town with many people. The utilitarian would kill the baby.
Utilitarianism: moral right means and morally wrong means. It has axims which means you don’t have to prove it. If we fulfill our function then we have Unitarianism. The greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people.
Problem: it leads to a paralyses
-Happiness means pleasure in the absence of pain. Unhappiness is private pleasure. Pleasure and the freedom from pain are desirable. Subjectively pain is bad. Many things can be desirable. Things that are good require some pain. For example, going to the dentist. Some people give up pleasure like monks and it doesn’t refute utilitarianism. They are pressuring pain of a means to an end.
-There are different kinds of pleasure. There different kinds of pleasures. If you compare two pleasures how can you tells what’s higher? An experienced consensus. This is a physical pleasure. There are atheistic pleasures that come from music, a painting, etc. There is also more pleasure that we get from doing the right thing.

-No normal human being will choose the life of a fully satisfied animal. No human being would choose that life. Its better to be a human dissatisfied then a pig satisfied. A being of higher intelligence requires more to make them happy. We are more capable of suffering then a dog because we can think deep into the future and the past. We are venerable more to emotional pain. We might wish to be an animal for a day.
Moral agent and a moral object.
-If an entity is a moral agent then you are a moral object.
Sentience: a being capable of experiencing pleasure and pain. Tress and plants are not sentience beings. Animals are sentience beings because they can experience pain.
Moral agent: Moral universe: it someone not worthy of prise and blame.
-Higher pleasures are a moral pleasure. Pleasure of higher intelligence will choose a lower pleasure over a higher pleasure. For example, getting drunk at the bar. This happens because of addiction, peer pleasure, time, and age is a factor. When you get older you might not enjoy intellectual pleasures.
The formal of utilitarianism calculus. (This is a formula).
-It is not about my own personal pleasure. It is not about maximizing individual pleasure over pain. It is about taking action and asking yourself who does if effect in terms of pleasure and pain. Does it produce happiness over unhappiness? For example, poring nuclear waste into the river. Is rape wrong? There is some pleasure produced, but the victim and the community have fear. It has more pain the pleasure. That is how utilitarianism would respond. This is a common sense calculus and not mathematical formula. An action is morally right or wrong if it passes Utilitarianism calculus. A bad person will act out of a motive to produce unhappiness. This is an idea that is something to look up to. The richer you are gives you a moral obligation to increase happiness in society.
-What proof is it acceptable? You can’t prove pleasure is good or bad they are axims. We have to look into ourselves. We are built to strive for happiness.
General happiness: Each person desires their own happiness. (He is committing the fallacy of composition if he uses the parts of a whole).
-Abortion focuses on Unitarians considerations.
Problems
1) Humans are built to peruse power and not happiness this is from Nietzsche.
2) Unitarians might promote violence. For example, killing someone and giving money to the poor.
3) Environmentalism. Three species of plants on that island. The plants and trees don’t matter, the goats on the island matter.

In this essay I will be looking at the utilitarian argument against the use of animals in medical experiments and analysing whether it is sound. In order to answer the title question I will look at the argument from the Utilitarian and animal rights activist, Peter Singer who puts forward his argument against the use of animals in medical experiments. One of the key features of the essay I will be; whether animals suffer both mentally and physically and to what extent does their suffering affect their selves and other beings. It is obvious that a humans suffering is taken as worse than an animals but there could be a point where an animals suffering could become equal to a humans’. For example, we must look at how much animal suffering would there have to be to equal that of one human. As one of the aims of utilitarianism is to minimise suffering then this would mean that we should account animals in the utilitarian argument and treat them with the same respect as we would humans as all sentient beings have an interest in not suffering. We must also look at whether experimenting on animals is necessary. As a lot of animal experiments have uncertain benefits, should we still be experimenting on live beings? Also we will have to analyse Singer’s argument against the use of animals in medical experiments and judge whether his argument is sound, also making sure that he sticks to utilitarian principles. We must also confirm his premises as valid, thus confirming that his conclusion also will be sound.

Argument against animal experimentation

Utilitarianism’s principles are to create the greater good out of a situation, in doing so, maximising happiness and limiting suffering. This principle of limiting suffering is vital in this argument against the use of animals in medical experiments. Animals obviously feel physical suffering as for example we step on the tail of a dog it will howl in pain, showing us that it does feel pain in the same way as a human.[1] Animals also show signs of sensing pain, demonstrating that they do experience mental suffering as well as physical suffering. For example when you see caged animals in zoos, some of them are pace up and down the side of their exhibit showing that they know something is wrong and are mentally suffering due to their restricted environment. As we know that animals have a capacity for suffering, this entitles a being to equal consideration and not their inability to reason or being able to talk. This is because if a being has a capacity for suffering it must have an interest in not suffering and all interests should be given equal consideration if we believe in equality. Bentham, one of the designers of utilitarianism, stated that ‘everyone should count as one, nobody for more than one’ and that ‘one person’s happiness is counted for exactly as much as another’s’.[2] Bentham in this quote implies that animals should be treated as equals to animals as both have the capacity for suffering.

Singer, the leading philosopher arguing for animal rights, appeals to the negative utilitarian principle that we ought to minimize suffering. He said that the suffering of one sentient being should be counted equally with the like suffering of another being.[3] Not treating the suffering of animals as equal to humans would be considered as speciesm, by Singer, as drawing a line between human sentient beings and non human sentient beings is just wrong.[4] The principle of equality demands that the animal’s suffering should be taken into account as well as the human’s suffering. So if you had to kill a healthy cat or a severely brain damaged orphan who is terminally ill, the experimenter should use the human for the experiment as it would minimize the suffering. If the experimenter is not prepared to experiment on the child than he should not be prepared to experiment on the cat as this would be blatant speciesm.[5] However if you had to experiment on this child or a small bird you might change your mind as we would think the level of suffering of a small bird would be lower than the human’s level of suffering. Singer himself agreed that birds are ‘inherently replaceable, partly at least because they have no conception of their future existence’ as they live ‘in the present moment’ alone.[6] This distinguishes cats from small birds although where we draw a line on moral grounds between different species based on their levels of suffering is debatable. Although Singer does view mammals, and other species, as equals to humans in their capacity of suffering.

There are those who seek to distance themselves from animals saying that they are unlike us and that they are fundamentally different to us. However if this was true there would be no point in experimenting on animals as to be consistent we must agree that the animals we experiment on are similar to us.[7] This leads us having to accept that animals are similar to us and that they experience suffering in a similar way to a human. If we did not accept this than experimenting on animals would be meaningless, as they would not react in the same way as us, causing results to only be correct for that species of animal. So instead of experimenting on animals we should experiment on humans. One would not experiment on humans who have a good life and family as the death of these humans would not be utilitarian as it would cause great suffering of the patient as well as their family. Therefore we should experiment on humans such as terminally ill patients who are going to die anyway or orphans, whose suffering would just be personal as they would not have a family.[8] Although this may not seem right it would be for the greater good so long as this experiment would relieve more suffering than it would inflict.

The use of animals in medical experiments usually depends on what is being tested on the animals. For example we can agree that we do not need shampoo or cosmetics to survive yet we still unnecessarily use animals to test these on to make sure it will not cause us suffering. These experiments cause unnecessary suffering for the animals for products that do not benefit humans.[9] This shows that this goes against the principles of utilitarianism as the animals suffer for no reason and the experiment does not minimise suffering.[10] Although some of the experiments may cause great benefits and save many lives in the future, most of the time the benefits from the tests to humans are uncertain, while the losses to members of other species are certain. Many experiments cannot be justified because they relieve more suffering than they cause as the interests of the animals in the experiment are not being considered at all, for if they were, there would be no human interest that had any chance of outweighing them.[11] As in a lot of experiments, the amount of animal suffering is much greater than the human suffering which it relieves. Utilitarianism is not concerned about possible consequences from testing on animals and so does not count the possible suffering which could be relieved by experimenting on animals.[12] Therefore experimenting on animals is not utilitarian as the animals suffer for unknown consequences which could still be unbeneficial as the animals body could react different to a human’s body.  

Argument for animal experimentation

Animals like every other living animal definitely seem to suffer as we can see animals howling when hurt. However the suffering of animals is different to that of humans as the sufferings of a self conscious being have an added dimension.[13] Humans experience mental suffering as well as physical suffering as we can anticipate pain, associating it with possible painful consequences. Also, unlike animals, we are aware of pains consequences. A dog hit by a car would drag its broken limb painfully behind him but would not know that this broken leg would mean death.[14] A man with a broken leg, away from health care and help, would know that he might have to die in agony. Sometimes it is right to inflict pain and cause suffering as even though we are unaware if there are any benefits; inflicting suffering is something we incline to doing. Our society uses punishment as a necessary form of suffering and although we cannot be sure if this has its benefits it is just a necessary part of any community which recognises freedom.[15] Suffering can also help develop people and animals through a measure of pain. Animals experience suffering naturally and take it as a way of life and as they are not self conscious this suffering does not affect their life instead helping them to develop. Suffering can not be prevented completely as with every step we take we cause pain to small creatures living in the ground. Our lives are impossible to live without causing suffering to lowly creatures. If we tried to limit the suffering of these creatures we harm inadvertently we would not be able to live our lives to the full.

Singer, in his arguments against animal’s experimentation, said that we should use humans as patients in these experiments in the same way as we would experiment on animals, treating them with equal value. However one human life is not equal to that of a mouse, nor is a blind disabled child with terminal cancer as this person would still be more human than mouse or any other animal for that matter. As a utilitarian one would not treat the suffering of one human as equal to that of any animal as humans are unique in their self consciousness. Also the suffering of a human would likely cause more suffering to their relatives, friends and other humans who might oppose experimentation on humans. Animals however do not have a self conscious and their experimentation would be unlikely to cause their family to suffer and only a few people, like Singer, would possibly suffer when knowing animals suffer. If we had to experiment on either innocent terminally ill orphans or healthy mice we would most likely experiment on mice as it would be instinctively wrong to experiment on humans even if the suffering of the mouse might be greater. So it would seem that no amount of suffering of animals can be greater to human suffering. Unless the suffering of one human was to save an entire animal population.

Experiments on animals are necessary to reduce the suffering of humans as well as sometimes saving humans lives. If we were to experiment primarily on humans rather than animals then the human patients would face suffering, much like the animals but on a greater scale as humans mentally suffer due to their self consciousness. Also in experimenting on humans there is a risk of death for the patient if the substance being tested causes a serious reaction on the patient. Although animals also have a risk of death when being experimented on a human life is much more valuable than an animals life, which even Singer would admit, so therefore it would be wise to test on animals before testing on humans. This way, humans are saved from unnecessary pain by using animals to test for us. For example a few years ago there were a few human volunteers for a scientific experiment. The result of the experiment caused two of the patients to die and others seriously ill. Experimenting on animals therefore stops humans suffering and possibly dying, in the case mentioned, by making animals suffer instead. As the suffering of animals in experimentation saves human suffering, experimentation on animals seems to be a utilitarian action. Animals’ suffering is less than a humans suffering and in this case an animals suffering prevents a humans suffering showing that it is utilitarian.

There are also problems with Singer’s argument against the experimentation of animals. As we can be sure that not all experiments on animals are wrong as a utilitarian, due to some experiments saving more suffering than they cause.[16] Singer should also have to agree that some experiments on animals are then morally right as a Utilitarian however this would lead to his conclusion being ‘most’ experiments using animals are wrong. Singer’s cautious conclusion causes his premise to have to be nothing stronger than; in ‘many’, instead of ‘most’, experiments using animals, the benefits to humans are uncertain, while the losses to members of other species are certain.[17] This therefore shows a very weak argument attacking the use of animals in experiments as his utilitarian principles will contradict his argument against using animals in experiments. Another problem with Singer’s argument is that many experiments on animals are justifiable as they are part of the general practice of science.[18] Singer mentioned that both using animals to test cosmetics are entirely unnecessary and that some experiments that would not pass conscientious ethics committees are wrong. These two objections condemn some experiments on animals but also leave many untouched. Also to continue the general practice of science, it must be left to do what it wants as we very rarely know in advance how useful our experiments would be. Science is a package deal so we have to apply indirect utilitarianism instead of direct utilitarianism as we do not know what the long term consequences will be.[19] Singer is therefore forced to make a substantial concession and has to admit that many experiments are justifiable as part of the general practice of science.[20]

Evaluation

As both arguments stated, animals do suffer physically but there is conflict between the two arguments whether animals suffer mentally as well. As animals are not self conscious beings they should not be able to foresee pain or predict that suffering is likely to happen. For example cannot be comforted or understand that some particular experiences of pain are temporary. However animals do show fear when being chased by predators and fear is mental suffering as no physical damage has been done to them. This shows that animals, through fear, can foresee possibilities of pain, so if a rabbit was being chased by a fox, the rabbit can foresee that it might get caught thus showing an animals capability for mental suffering. However a human’s mental suffering is far greater than an animals and so animals should not be treated equally as humans in experimentation as the levels of each ones suffering are very different. Another factor for human suffering is that we are also conscious towards other members of our species and become more emotionally attached to other humans. This means that if one human was to suffer, other humans would also suffer if they knew that you were suffering. For example if a human died, his family and friends would suffer as a result of his death, as well as possibly anybody else who may have heard of his death. Animals however are not as socially aware of its family and other members of its species. So if a dog died, its family would not suffer considerably from his death, as death would be treated as a natural occurrence.

Should animals therefore be included in the Utilitarian Principles? Bentham stated in his principles that ‘everyone should count as one, nobody for more than one’ and that ‘one person’s happiness is counted for exactly as much as another’s’. Although Singer used this in his argument against animal experimentation, Bentham does not suggest that animals as well as humans should be included when making a utilitarian decision. Singer said that the ‘suffering of one sentient being should be counted equally with the like suffering of another being’. Although it may seem crazy to treat a mouse as equally as a human it does make sense to limit as much suffering as possible by treating animals with care, as we should respect their interests in not wanting to suffer. This way the suffering of animals should be limited as well as maintaining the obvious difference between the suffering of humans and the suffering of animals. So although it is obvious that animals and humans are different in their levels of suffering where do we draw the line between the different species of animals? For example we would not treat a mouse the same way as a gorilla and we would not treat a cow the same way as an endangered tiger. If we consider mammals, we would normally treat the mammals with the closest genetic details to humans with more respect than other mammals. So we would be less likely to cause apes to suffer than rodents. Also we would also rarely experiment on endangered animals, such as tigers and pandas due to their small populations. This is one reason we experiment a lot on mice, due to their enormous population size.

Another question we could arise is do we need to use animals in our experiments? A lot of times we experiment on animals the need is for animal experimentation in non existent and the benefits to the human population being fairly minimal. Using animals to test whether cosmetics are fit for humans causes pain for animals without relieving pain from humans. For these types of experiments the need to use animals are minimal as cosmetic items are usually unbeneficial for the humans and greatly superficial. However we do need animals in other experiments such as experiments looking to cure diseases. These type of experiments advance the human knowledge and also enhance our survival abilities, when they are successful. Although experimenting on animals has unknown benefits, the possibility that it could save many lives is a reason why we should continue using animals in experiments. For example if it takes one hundred experiments on animals to find a cure for a rare cancer that only forms in around five people every year then the experiment would be viable as it would save five people every year. The suffering received by the animals would eventually be overridden by the suffering relieved from the humans. Also when testing for diseases, if the general practice of science needs to test on animals, it should, as we, as a human race need to advance by continuing the practice of science regardless of the suffering we may inflict on animals in the process.

We need to analyse whether Singer’s utilitarian argument against the use of animals in medical experiments is sound. We can argue against his utilitarian premise, showing that even if his argument is valid, we do not have to accept his conclusion as his argument is not sound. Firstly, through the argument for the use of animals in experiments, we found the premises of the argument to be both out of date, as practical ethics was published in 1979, and also to be fairly vague. Singer refuses to say that all experiments on animals are wrong as he has to consistently appear to be a utilitarian so that would mean that some experiments are right in some circumstances and wrong in others. Another problem with the argument is that Singer assumes that a lot of animal experimentation is going on even though he would not know the facts himself, which could in turn cause the argument to fail. Also as we need to continue the general practice of science which would mean we would sometimes have to experiment on animals to advance our knowledge or science. After evaluating the objection Singer is forced to make a substantial concession: he must admit that many experiments in the UK are justifiable as part of the general practice of science. However he can still produce an amended version of his conclusion. Although we must continue the general practice of science Singer mentions that there are still ways we can reduce the amount of animal experimentation by possibly seeking alternatives. He says we can reduce the amount of animal experiments by directing more research into finding ways to do all those things and hence away from experiments using animals. Although this may seem radical his amended conclusion is sound unlike his previous one where his premises and empirical facts were vague and unproven.

Conclusion

The utilitarian argument against the use of animals in medical experiments is a relatively sound argument. As we can see that animals suffer physically in a similar way as humans do, we can say that animals and humans are equal in the category of physical suffering. However it is not obvious that animals also suffer mentally like humans, even if they did it would not be in the same way as humans as we can anticipate pain and our suffering can affect other humans known to us. This capacity for mental suffering thus puts humans above animals in suffering terms which means that humans are worth more than animals. Therefore as we can not treat humans equally to animals, we have to have rules to decide how many animals are equal to one human. Out of all the animals we would have animals similar to us, like apes, more important than other animals. We also might favour endangered animals over others as well. If we talked on mice terms however, a single human life would be equal to a lot of mice lives. If we asked you if you would give your life for one thousand mice, you would probably say no. However if we asked you to give up your life for an entire mouse population you would definitely not want to make this decision. We should also try to limit our medical experiments on animals wherever possible. So it would be utilitarian to stop using animals for cosmetic experiments, instead using animals for experiments which may end up with products that could save human lives instead of using animals for experiments that hardly benefit our lives. Although there are problems in the utilitarian argument against the use of animals in experiments, as his premises are vague, leading to an indecisive conclusion. Singer does amend his argument to create a radical conclusion, saying that we should seek to reduce the number of experiments on animals and also that we should alter our lifestyles to benefit animal lives. Although many people would not want to alter their lifestyles, Singers point about reducing the number wherever possible is a valid one, and is one that we can easily seek to abide to. 

Bibliography

Animal Rights and Wrongs by Roger Scruton.

Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse

http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm 18/08/09

[1] Animal Rights and Wrongs by Roger Scruton. Pg.48

[2] http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm

[3] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.30

[4] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.30

[5] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.32

[6] Animal Rights and Wrongs by Roger Scruton. Pg.40

[7] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.36

[8] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.31

[9] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.36

[10] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.27

[11] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.37

[12] Same as above

[13] Animal Rights and Wrongs by Roger Scruton. Pg.48

[14] Same as above. Pg.48-49

[15] Same as above. Pg.49

[16] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.60

[17] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.61

[18] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.62

[19] Same as above.

[20] Humans and Other Animals by Rosalind Hursthouse. Pg.63

Many people get very bent out of shape when a person defends any philosophy that is based on the rights or desires of the individual. Something inside of the minds of some causes an aversion to anything that allows individual advancement or pleasure, unless it is their own. I have known many people that have this particular bent throughout my life and who being of a higher than average intelligence think about philosophical issues. Some of these people teeter consciously and unconsciously between such philosophies as Utilitarianism, Marxism, Communism, and other Collectivist philosophies with the stated reason that it is for the greater good of humans.

Many of these people have this false Utopian idea that such Collectivist ideas would ensure a blissful world for everyone if we just followed these “needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” type philosophies it their truest form. Throughout history these types of philosophies have been followed in their truest forms time and time again and have been responsible for the creation of all kinds of great suffering.

If we as humans concern ourselves with what is best for the many then there is the problem of the individual who is infirmed, disabled, or who has just gotten too old and is no longer of value. After all, they are a hinderence to the whole. Their illness or disability puts a burden of the rest of society. Therefore if we follow a needs of the many philosophy to its truest form then such people would have to be put to death. Not such a Utopian ideal now, is it? What if you are that person who’s health is getting in the way of the needs of the many? What if that person is someone you love? A parent? A Child? With that in mind it’s not so easy to make that declaration that we should attempt to follow a philosophy like Utilitarianism or Communism in its truest form. The elimination of the infirmed, disable, and old has happened throughout history when soceities have taken on a Collectivist attitude.

By their very nature these “needs of the many” philosophies do not stop with needing to eliminate the sick and the disabled to realize their truest from they also must eliminate anyone who does not fit into the norm. “Needs of the many” philosophies, to reach their purest form, must ultimately seek to create a homogenized human race that seems more like insects than mammals.

Recently, with the rise of “The Green Movement”, an argument for these philosophies has been sustainability. Those who propose that following such philosophies will be better for Planet Earth’s sustainability are delusional unless they are willing to allow the mass genocide or sterilization of billions of people. If we continue with this orgy of growth as a species while becoming more and more insect like we will consume the Earth like a plague of locusts. If we raise above this mob mentality and exalt the individual then individuals will find solutions to the problems humans have created on Planet Earth.

The majority of great inventions have come from individuals and not majority type groups. Where as majority groups usually give us such wonderful things as lynchings, the burning of books, and polluted beaches. I firmly believe that humanity can end its negative impact on Planet Earth if we can get past this recent regression in evolution that has resulted in a descent back into the hive mind.

Following any philosophy that seeks to further homogenize humanity with a Pied Piper’s call of “the needs of the many will benefit everyone” is dangerous business. Remember you are an individual and unless you are the guy on top dictating what “the needs to the many” means it will usually not fare well for you and you may even find your self on the dark side of that philosophy. That being becoming a person who has to be eliminated for “the greater good”. Humans can learn to balance the needs of the whole with the needs of the individual while creating a sustainable balance on Planet Earth. It is possible and it is our duty as a species.

Related Links

Suffering Has No Place In Reality So Stop Helping To Create It

One Simpe Way To Reduce Animal Death And Suffering While Saving Money

Stuffing Dead Animals Or Stuffing Yourself With Dead Animals

Modern Humans Have More In Common With Ants And Bees Than With Other Species

Would you like to write for sites like this, and get Paid, please join me on Triond by clicking here.