One interesting fact about utilitarianism is that it defines moral goodness in terms of experiences that are felt (pleasure and pain), rather than defining moral goodness in terms of some cognitive capacity

Review the learning materials so you have a good understanding of egoism and utilitarianism. One interesting fact about utilitarianism is that it defines moral goodness in terms of experiences that are felt (pleasure and pain), rather than defining moral goodness in terms of some cognitive capacity (e.g, human reason) or inherent “rights.”  Human beings are not the only sentient (which means “feeling”) beings, so, if utilitarianism is right, other kinds of things–like animals, say–have the capacity to experience moral good and evil because they feel pleasure and pain.  As a result, many contemporary thinkers argue that we must factor at least some animals into our moral decisions.  That raises some interesting questions.  Discuss whether you think some animals’ capacity to feel entitles them to moral consideration, and, more precisely, what such consideration might be.  What, if anything, do we owe animals from an ethical perspective? Each discussion post should be at least 250

Open chat
%d bloggers like this: