Home / E. Relativism, freedom and evasions / Part DIR
"Defending animals is just utilitarianism"
consideration for animals doesn't depend on utilitarianism. Equal consideration is a formal principle: it says we shouldn't be biased when weighing each individual's interests, whatever theory we use to decide what to do. Utilitarians, rights theorists, contractualists, egalitarians and capabilities theorists disagree about almost everything, and even so they have arrived at the rejection of speciesism. Knocking down utilitarianism doesn't rescue animal exploitation.
Short answer
It isn't. Tom Regan defended rights and was a harsh critic of utilitarianism. Martha Nussbaum uses the capabilities approach. Mark Rowlands uses contractualism. They all reach the same conclusion: animals count. In 2022, more than 500 philosophers from different schools signed the Montreal Declaration condemning animal exploitation. If you think utilitarianism is wrong, pick another theory. Speciesism is still left without a justification.
For children
Imagine three teachers who disagree about how to share a cake: one wants to give more to whoever is hungriest, another wants equal slices, another wants to draw lots. But all three agree you can't leave a child without cake just because they have red hair. It's similar with animals: people who study ethics disagree about many things, but many agree it isn't fair to let someone suffer just because they belong to another species.
"Which ethical theory do you think is correct? Let's see what it says about making animals suffer without need."
Como pode aparecer
"This animal stuff is just utilitarianism."
"Singer also defends absurd things."
"Veganism is social-media utilitarianism."
"The sentience criterion only makes sense in a utilitarian ethics."
"Even philosophers don't agree." (which is E11)
"Morality is relative." (which is E2)
The strongest version
"All this animal rights talk comes from Peter Singer, who's a utilitarian. And utilitarianism justifies horrible things."
Strongest version (steelman):
- P1The main argument for considering animals comes from Peter Singer's utilitarianism.
- P2Utilitarianism has unacceptable consequences, such as allowing an innocent person to be sacrificed to benefit many.
- P3A conclusion that depends on a false theory isn't justified.
- CSo the case for considering animals isn't justified.
P2 has the support of many philosophers, and it's true that Singer's Animal Liberation popularized the debate.
The argument is valid. Its soundness fails at P1: consideration for animals is defended by theories that reject utilitarianism.
Full answer
- a
Reconstruction and diagnosis
The argument confuses two levels:
Level What it defines Example Formal principle Who counts and how to weigh without bias Equal consideration Substantive theory Which action is right Utilitarianism, maximin, egalitarianism, rights Equal consideration is compatible with any theory that isn't biased. Utilitarianism is only one of them.
- b
Where the argument breaks
1. P1 is false.
The rejection of speciesism has been defended by rights theories (Regan), contractualist ones (Rowlands), the capabilities approach (Nussbaum), virtue and care ethics, among others. See the overview in "The state of the art in animal ethics", in the Beyond veganism section.
2. Rival theories agree on the conclusion.
Imagine two rescued animals and two ways of sheltering them. The utilitarian picks the one that maximizes the total good, the maximin supporter picks the one that improves the situation of whoever is worst off, the egalitarian picks the one that reduces inequality. All of them keep the same decision if the individuals swap places. Whoever changes the decision only because of species is no longer following any of these theories.
3. Knocking down a theory doesn't confirm the opposite conclusion.
Even if utilitarianism were false, an argument for speciesism would still be needed, and that argument is still missing (A10).
4. The argument attacks the person, not the thesis.
Discussing what Singer defends on other topics says nothing about whether it's fair to exploit animals (ad hominem).
5. There is a growing consensus.
The Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation, from 2022, was signed by more than 500 specialists in ethics and political philosophy from over 40 countries, who say they rarely agree with one another.
- c
Data and sources
Source What it says Note Questão de Ética, vol. II, ch. 7 Equal consideration is a formal principle compatible with several theories; gives the example of the three theories The main source for this chapter Questão de Ética, vol. XI, ch. 6 Compares what ethical theories say about animals The basis for point 1 Montreal Declaration on Animal Exploitation (2022) More than 500 specialists condemn treating animals as commodities Cited in vol. II, ch. 7 Regan, *The Case for Animal Rights* (1983) Defends animal rights from a non-utilitarian theory University of California Press - d
The strongest counter-reply: the other theories are weaker on animals
The most serious version grants that other theories consider animals, but says only utilitarianism demands radical change. Rights or contractualist theories would give animals only minimal protections, compatible with some use.
- e
Why the counter-reply doesn't reach the conclusion
Regan is more demanding than Singer.
His rights theory forbids any use of animals as means, including in cases a utilitarian might accept.
Minimal protections already condemn current farming.
Even moderate theories reject making animals suffer for trivial benefits, which is what happens in most exploitation.
The counter-reply changes the subject.
It moves from "only utilitarians defend animals" to "how much each theory demands", which already admits that animals count.
Reasoning errors
Logical
Is the form valid?
False premise
Denying the antecedent
Ad hominem
Epistemological
Does the evidence support it?
Not knowing the literature
Biases
Labeling
Reduces a broad position to a familiar name
General literature
Extrapolations
The principle being tested is: "if the theory of those who defend a cause has problems, the cause is refuted".
If it applied to…Abolition of slaveryTap to see
It would be refuted by the errors of some abolitionists
No one accepts this
If it applied to…Human rightsTap to see
They'd fall if one of the theories grounding them were false
Human rights have several foundations
If it applied to…Consideration for animalsTap to see
It would fall with utilitarianism
This is the argument's conclusion
Contradictions
But doesn't accept rights theory, which is more demanding on animals.
And accepts without any theory that mistreating dogs is wrong.
And justifies animal farming with a calculation of human benefits.
What the argument gets right
What is true
Utilitarianism has serious problems, discussed for over a century, and it's true that Animal Liberation tied the subject to that theory for many people. It's also true that theories differ about what we owe animals in hard cases.
But
But the central question, whether it's fair to make animals suffer and die for small benefits, gets the same answer from almost all of them.
Connections
Usually comes before
Usually comes after
Go deeper in Questão de Ética
Chapters from the open-access collection A Journey Through Animal Ethics that discuss this argument in more detail:
- Is the Rejection of Speciesism Compatible with Only One… Vol. II, ch. 7
- To What Extent Do Ethical Theories Agree About What We… Vol. XI, ch. 6