In Mill’s historical text, the ethicality of an action is determined by its ability to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Mill succinctly articulates this principle: “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure.” This utilitarian framework asserts that the moral worth of an action is judged by its consequences, specifically the extent to which it enhances or detracts from the overall happiness or well-being of those affected. Mill’s approach emphasizes a collective welfare perspective, advocating for decisions that maximize net pleasure and minimize net suffering across society. The ethical judgment, therefore, hinges on a comparative assessment of the impacts of actions, highlighting a pragmatic and outcome-focused methodology for evaluating morality.
McMullen, in his contemporary critique, argues for an ethical approach that encompasses the welfare and interests of non-human animals, challenging the anthropocentric bias prevalent in traditional economic models. He emphasizes, “By classifying animals as agents, we can move from altruism-based models to frameworks that explicitly include animal interests as an intrinsic good.” This statement underscores the necessity of recognizing animals as beings with inherent value and interests, rather than merely resources or means to human ends. McMullen’s critique is grounded in the ethical imperative to extend moral consideration beyond humans, advocating for an inclusive model that respects the intrinsic worth of all sentient beings. This approach demands a reevaluation of economic and business practices, urging a shift towards models that do not sacrifice animal welfare for human benefit. By advocating for the recognition of animal agency, McMullen challenges the traditional economic paradigm and promotes a more holistic and equitable ethical framework.
Applying Mill’s utilitarian principle to a contemporary issue, such as the case involving a corporation engaged in industrial animal farming, requires a nuanced and detailed analysis that balances the overall happiness generated against the suffering caused by such practices. Specifically, Mill’s framework would necessitate a comprehensive evaluation of the benefits derived by humans from industrial animal farming, including nutritional benefits, economic gains, and the availability of affordable food products, against the severe and extensive detrimental impacts on animal welfare, such as poor living conditions, inhumane treatment, and premature death. The ethical prescription under Mill’s utilitarianism would likely advocate for substantive modifications to current farming practices aimed at significantly reducing animal suffering. This could involve the adoption of improved welfare standards that ensure better living conditions for farmed animals, the implementation of more humane slaughtering techniques, or the exploration of sustainable and ethical food production alternatives, such as lab-grown meat or plant-based proteins. The justification for such changes is deeply rooted in the utilitarian goal of maximizing overall happiness and well-being, requiring a careful balancing act between human nutritional needs and economic considerations with the moral imperative to minimize unnecessary animal suffering and promote a more compassionate and ethical approach to food production.
In stark contrast, McMullen’s approach necessitates a more radical and fundamental reconsideration of the corporation’s practices, with a strong emphasis on prioritizing the intrinsic value and interests of animals over economic benefits to humans. By recognizing animals as sentient beings with their own rights, interests, and agency, McMullen’s ethical framework demands actions that significantly reduce or completely eliminate practices that inflict suffering on animals, regardless of the potential economic advantages for humans. This could entail transitioning towards alternative farming methods that respect animals’ natural behaviors and physiological needs, investing in and developing plant-based food production technologies that do not rely on animal exploitation, or completely rethinking the company’s product offerings to eliminate animal-derived products altogether. McMullen’s critique is built on a foundation that challenges the moral permissibility of compromising animal welfare for economic gain and advocates for a profound ethical shift towards practices that respect animals as beings with inherent worth. The rationale behind this stance is deeply rooted in an ethical commitment to justice, equity, and compassion, extending moral consideration to include non-human animals and advocating for sustainable, humane, and just practices that recognize and protect the intrinsic value of all sentient life.
Given the specifics of the case study, McMullen’s contemporary ethical approach is more convincing and ethically sound. This preference stems from a recognition of the moral obligation to consider the interests of all sentient beings affected by our actions, including non-human animals. While Mill’s utilitarianism provides a valuable method for assessing the balance of pleasure and pain, it inadequately addresses the depth of animal suffering inherent in industrial farming practices when such suffering is outweighed by human benefits. In contrast, McMullen’s model insists on an ethical framework that inherently values animal welfare and seeks to rectify the power imbalances between humans and animals in economic systems. This approach not only aligns with a broader ethical vision that cherishes compassion and justice but also advocates for sustainable and humane practices that acknowledge the intrinsic value of animal lives.
