a) Why would it make sense for a utilitarian like Bentham to make such a statement?
As a utilitarian, Bentham’s ethical framework is based on the principle of maximizing overall happiness or pleasure and minimizing suffering. For Bentham, the ability to suffer is crucial because it aligns with his utilitarian goal of promoting the greatest happiness for the greatest number of beings. By focusing on the capacity to suffer, Bentham aims to ensure that moral consideration is given to any being that can experience pain or distress.
From a utilitarian perspective, including the ability to suffer as a criterion for moral consideration is logical because suffering is generally associated with negative experiences and reduced happiness. By recognizing the capacity to suffer as morally relevant, Bentham emphasizes the importance of reducing suffering and promoting well-being in all beings capable of experiencing it.
b) Do you think that he’s right about the ability to suffer as what we ought to look at when we’re thinking about whether someone/something counts morally?
Bentham’s focus on the ability to suffer as a factor for moral consideration offers a compelling argument. From an empathetic standpoint, it is intuitive to recognize that suffering is undesirable and should be minimized. By considering the ability to suffer as morally significant, we acknowledge the inherent value of sentient beings and their capacity to experience both pleasure and pain.
However, it is important to note that the ability to suffer alone may not be sufficient to determine full moral consideration. There may be other factors to consider, such as intellectual capabilities, autonomy, or higher-order desires. Additionally, different ethical frameworks may prioritize different criteria for moral consideration.
c) If we took this seriously, what would it mean for our treatment of non-human animals?
If we take Bentham’s statement seriously, it would imply that non-human animals should receive moral consideration due to their ability to suffer. This perspective challenges traditional views that have historically placed human interests above those of non-human animals.
Taking suffering into account would require recognizing that non-human animals can experience pain, distress, and emotional well-being. Consequently, our treatment of non-human animals would need to consider their welfare and minimize unnecessary suffering. This could entail promoting animal rights, advocating for more humane farming practices, and supporting policies that protect animals from cruelty and exploitation.
Furthermore, it would necessitate reevaluating practices such as animal testing, factory farming, and other forms of animal exploitation that cause significant suffering. The focus would shift towards finding alternatives that prioritize the well-being and minimize the suffering of non-human animals.
In summary, adopting Bentham’s perspective on the ability to suffer as morally significant would likely lead us towards a more compassionate and considerate treatment of non-human animals, where their welfare and reduction of suffering become central concerns.
