Essay Example on Utilitarianism: Morality & Happiness in Action

Introduction

According to John Stuart Mill, "Actions are right proportion as they tend to promote happiness, which is wrong because they tend to produce the reverse of happiness" (Shafer-Landau, 2010). Mill, in this scenario, talks about utilitarianism to give a moral theory of happiness. Morality is the act of doing something right with the aim of making both parties happy. Some people believe that eating meat is ethical and morally right while others believe it is not morally right to eat meat since it involves the killing of animals which also feel pain. This paper will focus on various theories of ethics and morality, this includes theories by Stuart Mill and Kant. The study will connect these theories as it seeks to answer the question of whether it is morally right to eat meat.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Article Reviews on the Morality of Eating Meat

The article by (Mark, 2017) speaks about his experience when experimenting being a vegetarian and most people thought that he had a problem with killing animals, but his main idea was that he didn't want to feed them. The author explains how most vegetarians are motivated by Animal agriculture. This industrial animal agriculture is said to have outsized environmental impacts about the plant-based diet. The article (Mark, 2017) in the Sierra magazine mostly focuses on food and agriculture, whereby it shows how cattle ranching is said to have a huge impact when it comes to the production of greenhouse emissions. Most researchers are trying to understand the morality concerning eating meat. If one spends time to understand the morality of eating meat, you will realize most Americans prefer to eat meat, even including the author of the article.

The Morality of Eating Meat as Per Stuart Mill's Theory

They don't believe that it is ethical to consume a living creature to have a taste of it. Some other ethicists believe humans are different compared to animals because they are conscious of the acts, and they have a choice (Greenwald, 2020). Ethical vegetarian concerns have grown in most modern countries, mainly because of the spread of factories. Mill means that satisfaction is just a pleasure and a lack of pain, but he believes that comfort varies according to quantity and quality. Some desires are rooted in someone's high faculties should be measured heavily with other baser preferences. The paper will define utilitarianism theory concerning happiness as discussed by Mill and compare it with Kant's first and second categorical imperative, then compare the two approaches when it comes to the understanding of happiness.

The Morality of Eating Meat as Per Kant's Theory

The video by (Greenwald, 2020) shows how philosophers are arguing on the idea that eating meat is moral. The video shows how various individuals have arguments concerning meat and serious defenses of carnivores. According to the video, we have animal rights movements today, which have the major argument that causing animal suffering, is immoral. We have various arguments that are against eating animals like that of Singer who wrote on Animal Liberation, which goes back into the history of the ancient Hindus and Greeks (Mark, 2017). The video gives arguments that Christianity has a mandate that people should be vegetarians. The video argues that the Cartesian idea on animals which are considered to be unfeeling machines which are also incapable of suffering. It is evident that animals have an aversive response to pain, and other well-known scientists are suggesting that animals are sentient, and this is whereby the ethical argument comes on. It doesn't matter that an animal is just an animal, but it is good to understand that they have life and they probably feel pain just like humans, and it is hard to justify that it is morally good to eat them.

According to Kant, there exist both categorical and hypothetical imperatives. A definite is unconditional and absolute and is not dependent on any interior motive. On the other hand, hypothetical imperatives are associated with a purpose (Shafer-Landau, 2010). For example, do not kill is a categorical imperative. It is a general law and does not depend on any interior motive. On the other hand, "do not kill if you don't want to be haunted by the people you kill spirit" is the hypothetical imperative. In this case, there is an interior motive, which is not universal since most people do not depend on spirits. A spirit is haunting the rationale. According to Kant, while on the morality controversy, people need to ask themselves if the action they are about to make is consistent with duty. They also need to ask if their maxims can be considered as the universal law.

Philosophies on the Morality of Killing Animals for Meat

The article by (Hsiao, 2020) has a sophisticated defense of meat, which brings together ideas on psychology and morality concerning killing and eating animals. The fact is that all this lack of philosophical work that will help to justify that eating meat can be moral or immoral depending on the person's background or the culture or religion that guide them. Those who love to eat meat have little to say when it comes to arguments that justify their motives or what leads them to eat meat. Most of them say that they love meat and meat is deeply ingrained in their culture and habits of cuisine. Some believe that it has nutrients, and it is a part of their natural order. Few meat lovers fail to have the answer when it comes to fundamental ethical and moral issues on whether it is right or wrong to eat animals in the first place. Mill's theory means that utilitarianism is coinciding with other natural sentiments that come from our social behavior (Hsiao, 2020). This means that if society decided to embrace the philosophy of utilitarianism as a form of ethics, people would be able to internalize the standards they incorporate. He believes that happiness is just one basis that consists of morality, and other individuals do not desire anything in life but only delight. Mill can support this theory by giving an example of other objects of an individual's desire, which are just a means to get happy or added in the definition of happiness. Mill says that the sentiments found that injustice only focuses on utility and rights exist because they are considered essential to human happiness.

Mill and Kant's Theory Comparison

The two theories can give a good base of morality. According to Kant's categorical imperative, Mill's theory of utility offers essential formulations. Kant's opinion is better because his view can emphasize the significance of rationality, portability, consistency, and respect of individuals in how they live life. Kant is correct because moral absolutes will never be violated (Needs & Fall, 2019). After all, this helps prevent any problems like self-serving exceptions, loopholes, and personal biases when determining duties in life. Researchers define happiness as finding meaning in what you do, the good feeling daily. General satisfaction is genetically determined than anything else; life changes and moods fluctuate; both are relatively stable. Thinking of weight if you take in food as much as you want and always be active, your body will gain or settle at a certain weight unlike eating less and engaging yourself in some exercises your weight will adjust accordingly. One will stay at this new weight when the diet becomes a daily routine. Your weight will remain to get back to how it was when you get back to your healthy eating and exercising routine, and so it goes to with the cycle of happiness. Additionally, philosophers differ in their objective of what is ethically right or wrong. Either way, individuals' social setting will help them define what is morally right and wrong.

Conclusion

Ethical vegetarians believe that it's not ethical to hunt or kill animals because they believe that it is the same as killing human beings. The argument that they have is that this act of killing animals for meat can be justified only when it comes to extreme circumstances. According to Mill, the act of killing animals for meat is a situation where someone is doing something wrong with the aim of making themselves happy yet, on the other hand, they are hurting the animal. These individuals eat meat for their pleasure, yet there is no own happiness because it is essential to consider what other people feel. Someone's actions impact the other party's satisfaction, so it is wrong to focus only on personal happiness since its results will be the reverse of happiness.

References

Needs, D., & Falls, E. (2019) The Ethical Life Fundamental Readings In Ethics And Moral Problems. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1d08/eb09ea1acb7d7ebac3743a212905f04e3e37.pdfShafer-Landau, R. (2010). The Ethical Life: Fundamental Readings in Ethics and Moral Problems. The University of Wisconsin

Greenwald G. (2020), SENTIENT MEDIA ANIMAL MATTERS, Are Humans Morally Superior? Retrieved from<https://sentientmedia.org/animal-matters-episode-3-ethics-philosophy-animal-rights/>

Mark J. (2017), SIERRA NATIONAL MAGAZINE, Toward A Moral Case for Meat Eating, Retrieved from<https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/green-life/toward-moral-case-for-meat-eating>

Hsiao T. (2020), THE DINNER TABLE, Is it Ethical to Eat Meat? Retrieved from<https://ruhlman.com/2012/05/29/why-its-ethical-to-eat-meat/>

https://youtu.be/y3-BX-jN_Ac

https://youtu.be/D5sknLy7Smhttps://youtu.be/Cb2z8HAr7QY