Any sufficiently universal morality must include the impact our actions/inactions have on animals (or any other entity capable of "experiencing" some reality). We are nowhere near such a concept, and almost assuredly never will be.
The utility function is not up for grabs; it has to be axiomatically assumed and utilitarianism does not state whose utility matters and how much.
It is true there are preference utilitarians and various other flavors, but I don't think cutting out animals outside of one's moral circle of concern can really be justified under utilitarianism.
Or they may determine that all you mention plus natural formations like lakes and mountains and rock formations deserve protection and equal protection.
That’s why this entire article is a waste of time to me.
The best course of action is never to try to find a single “universal” truth but to accept a plurality of “truths”. That’s the only way we can survive as a species.
Vegetarianism and veganism used to be much more fringe just a few decades ago than they are now.
Animal right groups and laws didn't exist until relatively recently as well.
Understanding and valuing ecology and every species role in it as well is relatively new (at least among non-indigenous people) and making a difference in how we treat animals as well.
There's also a lot of research in to how animals view and understand the world, how they communicate, how much they understand and feel, and how they differ (or don't) from humans. That's also opening people's eyes.
I'm usually pretty pessimistic, but on this issue I am cautiously optimistic that we are moving in the right direction.
Tellingly (to me), despite some non-negligible percentage of the population becoming more sensitive to the plight of animals, the scale of animal cruelty today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty.
"Tellingly"? What does it tell? The scale of X (for almost all X) today absolutely dwarfs that of any bygone era. I wish when people say something is telling, they'd say what it tells them, but they usually don't. (It's like saying "Of course" or "Obviously". Rhetorically effective maybe, but doesn't help communication. They are a kind of bluff.)
> I see the modest gains in the population of vegetarians as a pyrrhic victory that would not have been possible with, perversely, the common knowledge of the current scale and scope of modern animal cruelty.
Sorry, I really tried, but can't work out what you are trying to say here. (It feels like at least a triple-layered negative.) Could you put it more simply? Seems like you're maybe saying "If more people knew the horrors of modern animal cruelty there would be less vegetarians", but that reading makes no sense to me. It's a very confusing, unclear sentence anyway.
And then there's the impact that our activities have on wildlife that we aren't intending to harm. We know we are causing harm, though, so much so that we regularly drive animals to extinction. We also know we are currently driving a mass extinction event but that seems to barely register on our list of concerns. I don't see any meaningful action right now towards addressing this. I honestly hear so, so little about it, even when we are discussing the impacts of climate change. I kind of forgot about it myself during this discussion.
So in summary, I see us as being willfully cruel to some and fully indifferent to others and ultimately I think we have gotten worse over the years, not better. If I were an animal, I would much rather have shared the planet with humans from 1000 or even 100 years ago than with humans from today, and I believe the trend continues.
Hope that clears things up.
Is it immoral to make a plant species extinct? Is morality rooted in subjective experience?
I pre-answered your question about the animal kingdom.
When I say "must include" I imply only that it's necessary, not sufficient. My premise is simply that I have identified a necessary condition which will never be met.