Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). © Oxford University Press, 2018. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in Oxford Handbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 19 February 2019

Abstract and Keywords

This article notes that, of all the traditional, mainstream ethical theories, none has been more disposed over the centuries to sympathetic consideration of the pains of animals than utilitarianism. By using a sentiency criterion of moral standing, Jeremy Bentham ensured that the pain and suffering of animals counted in the moral calculus. According to his theory, their pains confer on them moral considerability; and every utilitarian since Bentham has endorsed the sentiency criterion. The discussion in this article examines why utilitarians up to the present day have accepted the sentiency criterion and yet almost routinely failed, with specificity, to include animals within the calculus of utility in their general moral philosophies. Bentham was the first to exhibit this shortcoming. The article holds that in the last four decades, Peter Singer was the first utilitarian in the 1970s to take animals seriously.

Keywords: utilitarianism, moral standing, Jeremy Bentham, moral calculus, sentiency criterion, Peter Singer

Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.

Please subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.

For questions on access or troubleshooting, please check our FAQs, and if you can''t find the answer there, please contact us.