Animal Rights Theory and Utilitarianism: Relative Normative Guidance

In Practical Ethics, Peter Singer rejects the notion that ethics is "an ideal system which is all very noble in theory but no good in practice." [2] Singer identifies deontological approaches to ethics, such as rights theories, as impractical and as having to "rescue" themselves from their inapplicability to moral issues in the real world through the introduction of "complexities" such as formulating very detailed rules or establishing ranking structures for rules. He argues that utilitarianism does not start with rules but with goals, and thus has greater normative specificity because actions are prescribed or proscribed based on "the extent to which they further these goals." [3] Utilitarianism, Singer argues, is "untouched by the complexities" required to make deontological moral theories-including rights theory-applicable in concrete moral situations.[4] According to Singer, "[t]he classical utilitarian regards an action as right if it produces as much or more of an increase in the happiness of all affected by it than any alternative action, and wrong if it does not." [5] Singer's views about the nature of rights theory have had a profound impact on the animal rights movement. In the past five or so years, an increasing number of animal advocates have eschewed rights theory for precisely the reason that rights theory is supposedly incapable of providing determinate normative guidance. The concern articulated by these animal advocates is that rights theory demands the immediate abolition of animal exploitation, and that immediate abolition is simply unrealistic. Instead, these animal advocates support the pursuit of incremental animal welfare reform as a "realistic" means of reducing suffering and eventually achieving abolition. The animal welfare approach requires that we treat animals in a more "humane" way, and that we prohibit "unnecessary" suffering. For example, Ingrid Newkirk of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) ostensibly endorses a rights position and ultimately seeks the abolition of animal exploitation, but she argues that "total victory, like checkmate, cannot be achieved in one move" and that we must endorse the moral