On Helping Individuals and Utilitarianism
I'm not a utilitarian.
And when it comes to doing the math regarding the way I help individuals, though I never regret the decision to help, I understand that some might say, for instance, that for the amount of money I spent on Violet in one year (I think $15,000 was her most expensive year), I could have paid for the surgeries for several broken-leg greyhounds. Or paid for food for a year at a rescue kennel. Or printed thousands of copies of vegan leaflets.
Of course, I have an emotional attachment to that one individual, Violet Rays.
I've never met Bella, the orange tabby pictured above whose people abused her and tried to declaw her with pliers. She needs $8,000 worth of surgery, as her wrists are broken. Hers is a horrible story and I'm going to contribute to her care.
Helping individuals, financially-speaking, isn't a great use of money. And as a donor, you want your contributions to do the most possible. The average person doesn't fund programs that cost $8,000 per cat. But then again, funding a program is different from helping an individual. It's okay to require bang-for-the-buck when you are giving to a program. But such utilitarian thinking has no place when it comes to the individual.
It's quite paradoxical, as the programs you fund are helping individuals! And you wouldn't fund a program that was very expensive per unit (human or nonhuman animal) yet you often don't think about that when you're dealing with an individual.
And then there's the argument against direct actions such as breaking into a lab and liberating animals. Part of the argument is that the animals will simply be replaced by other animals, and you're not really making a net difference. But that's utilitarian thinking. What about the individuals right there in the laboratory? Don't those individuals matter?
I find that though utilitarians like Peter Singer do have a certain consistency that lulls me into thinking all is well and fair and just, the flip side of that is a startling neglect of the individual.
Considering the needs of an individual, and putting your money behind that individual could very well be considered fiscally irresponsible. But that's fine with me, as though the business of which individual is helped and why and by whom (and not by others) is messy and far from perfect theoretically, it's part of what makes us as individuals who we are. It's an expression of what's important to us and what resonates with us.
"And then there's the argument against direct actions such as breaking into a lab and liberating animals. Part of the argument is that the animals will simply be replaced by other animals, and you're not really making a net difference. But that's utilitarian thinking. What about the individuals right there in the laboratory? Don't those individuals matter?"
Eh, a Utilitarian could argue for rescue/liberation activities like those you've described because the net benefit for all animals could easily be greater than the harm. How? Because even if "they will just be replaced," they will be replaced at a cost to the lab, which incentivizes alternatives. It's always possible that they might not be replaced, if the cost is too great.
The basic principle in Utilitarianism is: the most good for the most individuals.
The ethical quandary isn't really about whether or not rescue/liberation of lab animals is justified. The problem is about trying to see into the future and predict the consequences of our actions. Consequentialist ethics requires factoring the potential outcomes, weighing their probability, and factoring that into the rest of the ethical equation. Depending on your ethical equation, the probable outcomes may not matter a whole hell of a lot or they may be all that matters. For me, they are part, but not all of what matters.
Mary,
Thank you for posting Bella and I also donated to her care. My husband said it is crazy to spend so much money on one cat when so many more could be saved with 8,000.00.
My response is that Bella is one year old and could live another 20 and after what she has been through she deserves to live a life free of suffering.
When a cow escapes a slaughterhouse the city is inundated with calls to send her to a sanctuary. Why? because of all of a sudden people are seeing the face of their steak or hamburger. Do they even think of the millions who were not able to free themselves from their horrendous fate?
I donate to many groups that rescue farm animals as well as feral cats, dogs and rabbits.
I don't need to see a face attached to a cause, but seeing Bella and thinking of what she has suffered in her short time on earth I could not see her euthanized without being given a chance at a full life.
When people tell me I'm crazy for rescuing and rehabilitating pit bulls since it barely makes a dent, my reply is always the same – one animal at a time. If I were that one animal or one person to be rescued among thousands I would be thrilled for the opportunity of a second chance.
The last rabbit we rescued was dying in squalor, emaciated and deathly ill with an upper respiratory infection. We cut huge mats from his neck from standing up in his tiny cage trying to free himself, fed him tons of hay, fresh veggies and fruit and most importantly gave him complete freedom. The vet didn't think he would survive. He instantly took to his litter box and in his sickly state managed to spin and kick up his heels in relief and joy. Today he is healthy and happy and is the first one to greet me when I come home from the office shimmying and skipping with delight. There are millions of bunnies living in the same condition Marco was in and I can't save them all, but I am eternally grateful for having the opportunity to save him and for the love and joy we have brought to each other. For me it is simple; saving one at a time if I can.
I wish more activists would have been pro the sort of 'Utilitarianism' discussed in this post.
Mary,
You write that "If I were that one animal or one person to be rescued among thousands I would be thrilled for the opportunity of a second chance". Certainly, any of us would be thrilled!
But, you are much more likely to be amongst the thousands who are not given the second chance whenever such a decision is made. Imagine how incensed you'd be if someone could have save you and 999 others but instead opted to save a single individual. Could you see that as defensible?
We almost always give preference to the individuals in our lives who we have existing relationships with…but generally this cannot be defended. We unfairly prioritize the interests of these individuals even to the detriment of others. The temptation to do this is so powerful that it is fairly difficult for to really blame someone for doing it…but it remains morally indefensible in most cases as it results in a net increase in suffering.
Ian
Ian,
It was not me who wrote that–it was Tricia glynn.
Oops – my apologies. After reading this post, I had so much to say, it was an effort to stay focused and make a single clear point rather than a wild jumble of a comments…apparently my attention lapsed in noting who authored the particular comment I quoted.
Ian,
If 300 people each donated 25.00 for Bella she could have the surgery she needs and deserves. We can't save all the animals and children for that matter, but we can do our best to save some.
When I contribute money to any sanctuary, I don't specify how I want that money to be spent. It might be spent on one individual animal who needs vet care or it can go to feed many other animals.
Bella is young and could live many years and if we can all contribute a little something she can live a life without immense suffering. Not only do I not have to defend sending money to help her, your post has encouraged me to donate more. Thank you. Many will send money for Bella out of pity for her who otherwise might have not spent a dime on any animal.
When I see ALF liberating battery hens, I get sick at the ones they leave behind, but am grateful for those poor souls they freed.