The Heiress and the Anarchists

[Ken Hanly]

The appeal to utility lacks philosophy. The utilitarians, who are still
legion, will find that a bit strange. Perhaps you could explain it. Also,
many utilitarians are all for animal rights or at least
maintain that animals have moral standing. Consider even a position such as
Bentham's that considers pleasure the sole intrinsic good. It is quite clear
that a broad range of species will experience pleasure and pain and hence
causing pain to animals is prima facie bad and pleasure prima facie good.

   Cheers, Ken Hanly

Gordon Fitch wrote:


> Yoshie Furuhashi:
> > Peter, I'd have to say I'm not in favor of the idea of "animal rights."
>
> The expression is maybe unfortunate because of the ambiguities
> in the word _rights_.  However, the notion that non-human yet
> sentient beings deserve ethical and political consideration
> has become rather widespread and has developed a modest body
> of theory, whereas the position that they do not, wherever I
> have encountered it, has always appealed either to utility or
> convention -- in other words, it lacks philosophy.  I'd be
> glad to speak as tediously as necessary for the former, if
> someone really wants me to -- I see animal rights or animal
> liberation as a natural extension of anarchism.
>
> Gordon