The problem with utilitarianISM is that -- supposing it is the greatest good for the greatest number -- we are left with the very difficult questions of deciding what "good" is and who the "greatest number" are. Many people find nothing wrong with confining and killing a conscious, intelligent, sentient being for, basically, entertainment (the taste of meat or the decor of fur), so it clear that for them the concept of "the greatest number" does not comprise non-human animals whose claim to ethical and political consideration must be vanishingly small if it their lives can be entirely consumed for another's momentary pleasures.
It is probably unnecessary to add that many people have not included certain classes of humans in the circle of the favored number, either, for similar reasons -- their lack of a soul, the necessity of preserving civilization, etc.
Gordon
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