Utilitarianism Double Standards

The middle classes required a channel for their humanitarian passions. Unable to aid the victims of social problems such as slum dwellers, the unemployed or children in need, the plight of animals became a surrogate cause to campaign for. This lack of an alternative outlet may have resulted in a disproportionate response to issues related to animal well-being (Turner, 1946)

(II) Double standards and class bias
Lewis Carroll pointed out a contradiction within the scientific community which undermined the case for vivisection. Carroll said that to describe humans and monkeys as brothers was incompatible with declarations of humans as superior to lower beasts, possessing the right to inflict pain upon them for human gain (Mayer, 2010). Unfortunately, there were frequently similar accusations of double standards within the animal protection movements too. Even prominent campaigners for a particular cause were willing to turn a blind eye to cruelty inflicted in a different manner or by their own social class. Queen Victoria, for example, was hugely in favour of the vivisection bill. In a letter to the Prime Minister, Disraeli, she urged him to pass the bill, lest the people of Britain be disgraced by their acts
Others continued purchasing hats and head-dresses featuring feathers obtained by trapping and killing birds – even wearing them to the anti-vivisection rallies (Leneman, 1997). English physiologist Burdon Sanderson assured that he aimed to inflict the minimal amount of suffering possible in his work. He did not believe the same could be said of the use of animals in sport, food or the luxury product industry (Richards, 1986). Seemingly, openly denouncing one form of cruelty did not equate to concern for the well-being of animals in all