Animal rights Essay Example for Free

Animal rights EssayUtilitarianism is concerned with happiness, and utilitarians accept the idea that value is universal so utilitarians believe that the constitutional value of happiness it is unaffected by the identity of the being in which it is felt. Thus each counts for one, and none for more than one and my own interests cannot count for more, exactly because they are my own, than the interests of opposites. Utilitarians support equality by the equal consideration of interests they reject any arbitrary distinctions as to who is worthy of concern and who isnt. This means that we reject egoism, racism, sexism, speciesism, and other forms of unfair discrimination. It does not mean that we deny that there are differences between individuals or between groups of individuals (some individuals are cleverer, taller, stronger, more emotional etc than others), just that there is no logically compelling reason for assuming that a difference in ability justifies any difference in t he consideration we give to their interests.Utilitarians believe that composition happiness, pleasure, joy, satisfaction, ecstasy and so-on are not synonyms, they do all represent positively intrinsically valuable feelings and that the value they represent is of a similar kind, and so is transformable or equivalent (in some proportion). Pain, suffering, unhappiness, agony etc are all regarded similarly that the disvalue they represent is convertible, not only with that of the other negative feelings, but with the positive feelings too.This means, for example, that a utilitarian might believe that it is worthwhile to endure a certain amount of suffering now, if it ensures a greater amount of happiness later. In incorrupt utilitarianism, happiness is regarded as positively valuable, and unhappiness (pain, suffering etc) is regarded is negatively valuable. Negative utilitarianism denies the positive aspect it denies that happiness is intrinsically valuable. By negative utilitarian ism, the only finale (the only thing which is seen as good) is the reduction of suffering.Regular utilitarians and negative utilitarians agree on some issues, and disagree on others. A standard disagreement is illustrated by the fact that a negative utilitarian would believe that, if it were possible to exterminate all life in the universe instantly and painlessly and permanently, it would be pay and ethically required that we do so (in order to prevent any future suffering). A classical utilitarian might decide either way, depending on their estimation of the relative amounts of future suffering and happiness.