@alexbenjalbert wrote an excellent post yesterday, [In defence of meat: Reflections on society, ethics, experience, and current scientific knowledge – Part II](https://steemit.com/philosophy/@alexbenjalbert/in-defence-of-meat-reflections-on-society-ethics-experience-and-current-scientific-knowledge-part-ii), about the moral implications of eating meat.  I do have to admit that the tasty pic he included in the post drew me to the "meat" of his argument.  

I have always considered myself as a bit of a utilitarian in my moral foundation, and I was surprised to find out that utilitarian argument has been used to argue against meat-eating. I was even more surprised to be informed that Bentham (one of the "founding"  utilitarian philosophers had included animals within the range of his moral calculations.  So I decided to write a summary of Utilitarianism and in doing so to reacquaint myself with the theory.

# Post Overview:
+ Underlying Assumptions
+ A History of Utilitarianism
+ The Hedonistic Calculus 
+ Meat is Murder, Tasty Tasty Murder

# Underlying Assumptions

One of the first things to understand in the definition of morality is that you have to establish a common ground for discussing it, or you will talk right past the person you are discussing it with.  There are two basic divisions in moral definition;  deontological  morality and utilitarian morality.  These establish a priority in how morality is defined.  Under deontological  definitions, the *intent* of the action is how morality is defined, while under utilitarian premises, the *result* is what matters.

Emmanuel Kant is the foremost name in defining deontological  philosophy; as "opposed" to the utilitarian Bentham. Let's take an oversimplified look at his views:
>Kant proposes the study of duty as deontology. Kant contradicts utilitarian theory with the accusation that those theorists ignored the concept of duty. He thought that “the key to morality is human will or intention, not consequences.”(Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.16) Kant also proposed that there were “categorical imperative”, moral directives to be followed at all times. One of Kant's “categorical imperatives” is “universalizability”. “The basic idea of universalizability is that for my action to be morally justifiable, I must be able to will that anyone in relevantly similar circumstances act in the same way.”(Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.17) A second “categorical imperative” is “the fact that human beings have intrinsic value” (Braswell, McCarthy, and McCarthy,2010, p.18) However, Kant is wrong in almost every facet. He contradicts himself with the concept of “universalizability “ with the caveat that circumstances be “relevantly similar”; to judge “relevant” circumstances is to open the floor to double standard and hypocrisy. The idea that ALL humans have intrinsic value is simply wrong, The only value that tyrants and murderers have is negative.
[The Moral Imperatives of Beer at the Sergeant's House ](https://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-moral-imperatives-of-beer-at.html)


And these  different definitions (as well as different approaches within these two schools of thought) have real life, not academic, impact.
>When Kant sets his key position on the basis of “good intentions”, he may as well label his philosophy as “the road to hell”.
[The Moral Imperatives of Beer at the Sergeant's House ](https://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-moral-imperatives-of-beer-at.html)

Another item to consider is that there are divisions within these "schools of thought", that there are attempts to reconcile the two schools, and that there are other approaches to the definition of morality.  The point is that I can't just lecture you on morality, and assume that you and I have the exact same idea of what morality is.

I do wish to contend that the greatest advances in philosophy were made during the time that Bentham created the Hedonistic Calculus;. Hume,Smith, Hobbes (*Leviathan*, as much of a bitch as it is to read should still be studied today -quick note, I personally still haven't blundered all the way through it, but when you understand wth Hobbes is saying, you understand what a clear grasp of human nature he had), et al.  The next greatest discussion of philosophy doesn't come until Karl Popper introduces the philosophy of science.  Human thought reached it's peak at this time, and has declined steadily under various collectivist ideologies and their  excuse-makers and propagandists.

So let's move on to a summary of Utilitarianism.  To begin with, we should understand that Utilitarianism is a set of related theories, and as I stated, there are differences in thought within these theories.  However, the basic idea is that Man is motivated by the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain.  Morality, therefore, is provided by providing the greatest amount  of   pleasure and the minimum amount of pain to the largest amount of people possible, thus resulting in*utility*.  This is measured by the *result* of actions.  This is why I use the title description of a logic based moral system.

# A History of Utilitarianism

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Jeremy_Bentham_by_Henry_William_Pickersgill_detail.jpg

Although Bentham is regarded as the leading figure in Utilitarianism, the ideas behind the philosophy were not new, and some of the principles had been included in college texts since 1712. IMHO opinion, Bentham's greatest contribution to the discussion was the introduction of the  Hedonistic Calculus, which allows for measuring and  comparing the amounts of pleasure and pain of the participants in a moral decision.

John Stuart Mill was the next contributor to utilitarian thought, and his major addition to this set of ideas was the "proof" of what he called *Principle of Utility*.  Argumentation over this "proof"is a staple of philosophical debate.  I'll let you make your own decision:
>The only proof capable of being given that an object is visible, is that people actually see it. The only proof that a sound is audible, is that people hear it... In like manner, I apprehend, the sole evidence it is possible to produce that anything is desirable, is that people do actually desire it… No reason can be given why the general happiness is desirable, except that each person, so far as he believes it to be attainable, desires his own happiness… we have not only all the proof which the case admits of, but all which it is possible to require, that happiness is a good: that each person's happiness is a good to that person, and the general happiness, therefore, a good to the aggregate of all persons.
John Stuart Mill

Mill had his differences with Bentham over aspects of utility, and each interpretation in turn has had it's difference with it's predecessors (btw, this is not a full listing - rather it is a jumping off point for those of you that would like to know more):
+ Ideal utilitarianism 
+ Act and rule utilitarianism
+ Two-level utilitarianism
+ Negative utilitarianism - Karl Popper again, with the modification to the basic idea that Man avoids pain rather than seeks pleasure

From my own perspective, it is the concept of the Hedonistic Calculus that carries the most weight in determining the results of an action, and thus is determining the morality of that action.  I do not consider this a case of double standard, as I would in Kan't *univerziibilty*, because the calculus can be used in each situation - situations are different in circumstance each and every time.


# The Hedonistic Calculus 
+ Intensity: How strong is the pleasure?
+ Duration: How long will the pleasure last?
+ Certainty or uncertainty: How likely or unlikely is it that the pleasure will occur?
+ Propinquity or remoteness: How soon will the pleasure occur?
+ Fecundity: The probability that the action will be followed by sensations of the same kind.
+ Purity: The probability that it will not be followed by sensations of the opposite kind.
+ Extent: How many people will be affected? 

Remember that the matrix can be used in determining measures of both pleasure OR pain.

One thing that I focus on in decisions in using the Calculus is the idea of *Certainty*, especially when considering the real life ramifications in security policy.  If you have an enemy whose ideology and doctrines demands that he kills you or enslaves you, and who has attacked you in the past, preemptive action is morally justified due to the *Certainty* that he will attack you again.



# Meat is Murder, Tasty Tasty Murder

https://s12.postimg.org/qjj7cxc6l/mmttm.jpg

Now that we have the basic overview of the philosophy, let's return to @alexbenjalbert's  post.

First off, **did Bentham address animals within the calculus**?

Modern utilitarians often make this claim (Singer), using this quote
>"the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?
(For Bentham on animals, see Ch. XVII Note 122)

But wait, there's more...much more.  Bentham said the following *specifically* regarding the eating of tasty tasty animals (from the [same chapter, same note](http://www.econlib.org/cgi-bin/searchbooks.pl?searchtype=BookSearchPara&id=bnthPML&query=Can+they+talk%3F+but%2C+Can+they+suffer)):

>If the being eaten were all, there is very good reason why we should be suffered to eat such of them as we like to eat: we are the better for it, and they are never the worse. They have none of those long-protracted anticipations of future misery which we have. The death they suffer in our hands commonly is, and always may be, a speedier, and by that means a less painful one, than that which would await them in the inevitable course of nature

Now Bentham *does* argue against tormenting animals, and the argument can be made that our livestock techniques are in fact tormenting the animals.  While it is a valid argument, I do not consider it to be a credible one.  I would say that he presents a better case against dressing your pets up in silly costumes!

Even looking past Bentham's specific statement on killing animals for their meat, we can look back at the Hedonistic Calculus to make our own moral decision regarding meatriculture;  I personally would use *Certainty*, *Purity*, and *Extent*.

There is no *Certainty* that an animal locked into a cage, forbidden exercise, and stuffed full of food is tormented; it certainly doesn't seem to affect a large part of the human population to sit around the house, gorging and lying on their asses doing nothing but watching TV...maybe we should put large screen TV's in the slaughterhouses and make the animals watch *Oprah*.  Naw, *that's* torture!

The *Purity* is involved in the quick kill aspect of slaughtering (although Bentham does address this specifically).

Finally, due to the *Extent* of humans that benefit from meat, I would set out the chopping block on this point alone.

So yank off that chicken's head and spit that hog,  meat's back on the menu!

http://tailgategrilling.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/T-Bone-steak-Grilling-1024x772.jpg

*Damn it, now I WANT a steak!*


**References:**

[Utilitarianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Nonhuman_animals)
[An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, by Jeremy Bentham 1781](https://www.utilitarianism.com/jeremy-bentham/index.html)
[Two different philosophies of policing ](http://gradschoolfool.blogspot.com/2015/01/two-different-philosophies-of-policing.html)
[John Stuart Mill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill)