To the statement below express your opinion that you agree or disagree with it.

if a dozen animals had to suffer to save thousands, it would be ethical.  This is true with regards to equal consideration of interests, amongst same species, provided all things are equal.  Under these, simple, circumstances, I argue, it would be unethical to ignore the needs of the many, in place of the few.

With utility in mind, it seems to become immediately obvious that, the suffering, or death, of thousands, carries greater weight than that of a dozen.  The happiness of those who live, will, in this case, surely outweigh the sadness of the who don’t, provided all things are equal.  This reasoning also holds true if we take equal consideration of interests into account.  The interest that those thousands have in living, surely surpasses that of our unfortunate dozen.  Indeed, it seems that not much, if any, good could come about by leaving the dozen to their own devices, except of course, that their interests would not be infringed upon.  It seems that these dozen innocent creatures, are unimplicated.  This provides, I believe, the strongest argument for their defense.  Although thousands are saved, we have stripped twelve of their autonomy.  Their ability to make decisions about their own good has been taken away.

While it may seem that taking away a creature’s autonomy is unethical, I believe this only has strong implications for highly rational beings.  If a creature, say a mouse, is caused discomfort to save a thousand others, and can only appreciate it’s own suffering, then overall, utility has been increased.  Simultaneously, it is unlikely that the thousand will care about the one’s displeasure.  With highly rational beings, such as humans, there are many more factors to consider in this scenario.  Do they have families and friends that will miss them? Will others become fearful of losing their own autonomy?  What utility could they have created?

For humans and other highly intelligent/social animals, it seems that it would be unethical to capture a few in order to save thousands.  Especially if they had families, and others knew of their fate.  There are many more levels of suffering which they can experience, particularly concerning autonomy.  Having one’s autonomy removed, can have drastic lifelong, and life altering effects.  Because of this, it seems that this scenario, while ethical in some circumstances, is not universally applicable to all species.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

All creatures are deserving of a life free from fear and pain Maura Cummings I disagree with the statement that ethical in some circumstances is not universally applicable to all speciesThe question o... View the full answer