The Morality of Killing Animals: Four Arguments

Abstract

First, i examine two versions of the argument for moral consistency, one associated with regan and one with singer. both are rejected. i then argue that singer's preference utilitarianism does not entail that killing self-conscious beings is (usually) wrong. the position i think it entails is developed, namely, that there is nothing wrong with killing "noncognizant" beings when utility is maximized. two objections are dismissed and the notion of rational preferences is discussed.