Utilitarianism
So, we are left with the situation in Fig. 3. The first option is howmany wild chickens would exist naturally without human involvement. The second is more
utilitarian because there is greater net utility but the third (which seems to be the option with most utility) is not really an option. Without reason to exist (as food) there would never be 24 billion chickens in this world, only 3000. So, the utilitarian thing to do is to farm animals but as humanely as possible so they gain as much utility from their lives as possible. Note: with cows there are other factors to consider, such as their impact on the climate and environment (negative utility), but it is important to find a balance. 63
Utility monster-aninal
One way we might now consider creating as much utility as possible is to take an animal which is quite intelligent (so appreciative) and easily pleased, then breed as many as possible. We would then have the human population in servitude to the happiness creatures (utility monsters). Since it’s easier to fulfill utility, and because humans are in a god-like position, we create a world which serves them and maximizes their utility. I’m talking about dogs. Why don’t we use dogs to maxim ize global utility? Golden retrievers have evolved to be friendly and happy. Breeding lots of chickens is pointless except to fulfill our own happiness through food because chickens cannot (cognitively) appreciate their life as much as a dog who has much higher utility potential. A response to the proposition of dogs as utility monsters is that for those not as cognitively advanced as humans (i.e. dogs and other animals), the animals are happy when they think they’re living their best life. A dog cannot desire what it doesn’t know about : dogs aren’t creative. If you never show a dog what an automatic ball throwing machine is, or show it what an electric blanket is, it will never in the first place desire either of those because it was not aware of the possibility of them. Dogs are equally happy if just the things they desire are maximized. We can limit their desires to socializing and sticks; once your dog meets another dog with a squeaky ball it will now invariably desire this. To be utilitarian you must let your dog socialize and play and now give the dog its own squeaky ball. My argument here is that you do not have to give animals all the luxuries in the world, even if they are similar to a utility monster. Because they are less cognitively aware, animals will settle for what they have if they’re given reasonably good lives. We could increase the number of dogs in the world to increase utility. But not at the expense of humans. What would be the effect of building a dog park?
63 When I say ‘balance’ in this essay I’m referring to the optimific equilibrium point when we compare the many factors affecting utility that situations present us with.
108
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs