Arguments Against Utilitarianism
Moral theory has an aim of systemizing our moral common institute. That is the view of philosophers when it comes to thinking about moral theory. Singer a philosopher suggest that people should abandon utilitarianism without even giving them a convincing point about why, except that utilitarianism does not support vegetarianism in fact Singer says that utilitarianism have a great relationship with vegetarianism. Utilitarianism is considered to be a moral philosophy that bases it argument that we have moral obligation to utilize and maximize the available utility in the world. Utility is earned from things that people can easily be accessed like food, money, happiness, fulfillment of want, comfort or pleasurable. The theory argues that not everybody
…show more content…
Singer says that consequently act is based on likelihood of outcomes, which as per to my opinion is not true. For instance, there are 20,000 chickens to be saved by 10,000 vegetarians, but unless you are the 10,000 person who want to save all the chicken, the outcome of saving all the chicken or one is the same. This is unreasonable at all; the more the number goes high, their morality relies on the urge to kill and pleasure. As believed by most people, there is an urge to kill an animal than to save its …show more content…
The point is that even if you decide to become a vegetarian you won’t achieve anything y your consumer choices and this is because they cannot be counted by animal industries. Now how can somebody feel the pain of animals if the distribution of the products is made in such a way that they cannot be noticed but can only match their inventory planning to sales. Now the biggest question is, even if you stop consuming meat who will notice? Are the same people who knows when you go on holiday or when someone dies? Animal industries this day operates on vast scale, and they do it in such a way that even some animals fail to make to the final product stage. So ask yourself that which of the chicken firms will fail to buy chicken because you have boycotted eating chicken? The point is the preference of individuals will always change and there is no way everybody can prefer to be
Singer says that consequently act is based on likelihood of outcomes, which as per to my opinion is not true. For instance, there are 20,000 chickens to be saved by 10,000 vegetarians, but unless you are the 10,000 person who want to save all the chicken, the outcome of saving all the chicken or one is the same. This is unreasonable at all; the more the number goes high, their morality relies on the urge to kill and pleasure. As believed by most people, there is an urge to kill an animal than to save its …show more content…
The point is that even if you decide to become a vegetarian you won’t achieve anything y your consumer choices and this is because they cannot be counted by animal industries. Now how can somebody feel the pain of animals if the distribution of the products is made in such a way that they cannot be noticed but can only match their inventory planning to sales. Now the biggest question is, even if you stop consuming meat who will notice? Are the same people who knows when you go on holiday or when someone dies? Animal industries this day operates on vast scale, and they do it in such a way that even some animals fail to make to the final product stage. So ask yourself that which of the chicken firms will fail to buy chicken because you have boycotted eating chicken? The point is the preference of individuals will always change and there is no way everybody can prefer to be