Thanks for the comment. People who give to animal charities typically jusitify it in a certain way, and my point is that if they were consistent with their own ethics they should give it all to humans. Take those who follow Peter Singer: they base their jusitifications on the principle of reducing suffering. But on this basis helping humans is more important.

S.

I think we are doing both – we are criticising those who adopt it as an ethic not only because they aren’t following it but also because they CAN’T follow it consistently. So there is fault with both. An ethic is supposed to be a guide for living, and to the extent that utilitarianism is practically impossible to follow there must be something wrong with the theory.

S.

Could I ask if you feel that, by exposing how difficult it is to be morally consistent through utilitarianism and how hypocritical most of those who espouse it are, we are making an argument against utilitarianism, or are we merely saying that most of those who practise it are not doing so very well?