Equality

            Considering the theories of goodness and intrinsic value, I think the theory that is most defensible is the theory about equality. Following Mill’s Utilitarianism, pleasure is the ultimate goal we should be aiming for. We need to maximize the good and minimize the bad. With equality, these two outcomes could be very possible. If the good was equally dispersed among everyone, than no one would feel left out or unjustly served. Some people do good deeds that interfere with someone else’s pleasures. This can’t happen with the equality theory because everyone’s well-being would have to be equal. This directly correlates with minimizing the bad because it prevents people from suffering from other people’s decisions.

A case against the equality of everyone’s well-being would obviously be if someone was more moral than someone else then they deserve more “units” of well-being. This objection might be convincing, but you can make an argument against it. The simple argument is common humanity, which means that all humans are equally humans so we should all be treated the same. Furthermore, if that didn't convince you then why couldn't something nonhuman like an animal have more well-being if it acted more moral than a human? In this case, does the animal deserve more “units” of well-being? This notion seems a little absurd, but Jeremy Bentham, a British philosopher, will argue that animals suffer so they should relevant. He says, “But a full grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as a more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old."

An objection against that comes from Christine Korsgaard, a philosopher, who thinks that “humans face normativity and non-humans don’t.” Humans are conscious of their decisions and passions and think about them. Animals are not conscious of their behavior; they can’t think like we do. Korsgaard also says, “Since non-humans do not act on reasons they do not have a practical identity from which they reflect and for which they act.” Basically there’s a lot of controversy in animals being relevant in the case of utilitarianism. Humanity means human, so the words alone of common humanity don’t refer to animals, which makes it a more reassuring argument.