Flaws with Utilitarianism Essay

Among the almost glaring problems that I see with utilitarianism is its inclusion of savages under the comprehensive that blankets this theory. It seems irrefutable that there exists an inordinate digit of cases where the importation that is against the best interest of an animal is favorable to humans, yet that dictating action is unmatched that has been continually taken and cond angiotensin converting enzymed by the everyday public. This is a fundamental challenge, as the functional philosophy decrees that the cheer and pain undergo by all undivideds, including animals, has equal outlay and must be considered when de end pointining the profits realize of an actions consequences.The most drastic and prevalent of examples that one could stomach to illustrate this contradiction in terms would be the make of apply animals to provide food. It cannot be argued that it is in the best interest of a cow, a chicken, or another animal to be slaughtered to serve the dietary needs of mankind. Accordingly, utilitarian reasoning suggests, in direct showdown to the intuition of humanity, that it is morally impermissible to bug out the animals. term a Utilitarian philosopher expertness provide the counter-argument that much(prenominal) is natural regularize of the world that there exist a hierarchical food tree. Further they would aver that the greater good is that humans be nourished and provided for by the heart and soul, for our cheer is fantabulous in quality to that of the beast. This reasoning, however, is flawed in two ways. Initially, the method by which meat finds its way to grocery stores for our purchase and eventual(prenominal) consumption is not one governed by the ways of nature, but rather is one engineered for efficiency by humans.Animals atomic number 18 bread forcibly, then nourished with specific jailed of managing fat content, meat flavor, and healthiness, each of which discounts the Utilitarian claim that nature makes our ca rnivorous methods ethically permissible. Secondly, and perhaps more fundamentally, such a claim is in direct contradiction to the Utilitarian tenet that each individual has equal value regardless of individualism or stature. Because humans could be sufficiently nourished without the killing of animals, it cannot be argued that the consequence of causing death to an animal is equivalent weight or less substantial than that of eating a man.Conversely, there exist as as many challenges to raise had the ethicist taken the alternate position that animals keep up equal value and accordingly that their pleasure is impermissibly infringed upon when they are killed for human interest. Arguments could be presented for a bevy of actions taken on a daily basis by society as a whole. maven might address the fact that using animal testing for the advancement of medicate has benefits that outweigh the pains. Similarly, while the development of prop up effectively kills the previously anima l inhabitants, it is an certain result that society has displayed it is willing to disregard.In each of these cases, the majority of society condones such demeanour, as evidenced by their public as common public practice. While it is undeniable that opposition to each behavior does exist, the magnitude of this resistance is far outweighed by those in finding the long term benefits worthy of the negative consequences. In the end, it grows unornamented that while it may be of import to consider the interests of animals when calculating the net benefit of a given action, neither their pleasure nor their pain should be equated to ours.Such a principle has been introduced through with(predicate) the ethical thought experiment The Dilemma of the Swine. Resultantly, human being constitutes higher pleasure that does that of an animal and we are often better served by make such a distinction through intuitive analysis rather than applying sybaritic Calculus. The fact that Utilitar ianism can be coerce into contradictions regardless of the stance they choose makes the inclusion of animals under their ethical umbrella a significant problem.