Ursinus Intro Ethics Blog - Section A

On the topic of who should count when determining overall well being of a population, I believe that the line has to be drawn at humans. Although some animals may be able to recognize when they are being treated badly, they don’t understand the concept of well-being. If they are unable to recognize well-being and the morality of creating the most good possible, then they will also be unable to contribute in that way to the society. Although pets may add to the overall well being, they do not do so consciously and therefore it is the person that placed the pet in that situation that added to the good. If someone is going to base a moral belief completely on the attempt to maximize the amount of good in the world, only beings that are able to contribute to the good of others should be considered in the society. I am not saying that it is alright to hurt animals because they are not at the same level as humans, but that the well being of an animal should not be considered more important than that of a human. I do think that the injuring of an animal for one person’s pleasure is a bad thing, even in the utilitarian view. Many people believe that hurting an animal is a horrible thing to do and that animal may have created some sort of happiness in someone’s life, so by killing the animal, it would have removed good from the world, and that pain would be lasting and perhaps more intense than the pleasure derived from harming the animal. In this way, it is not the animal’s well-being being taken into account; it is the good of the humans that were affected by the animal.