Sample Outline Title: Eating Animals: Utilitarianism and a Rights-Based Approach Compared Introduction: Identify topic of paper: the

e moral permissibility of eating non-human animals from factory farms according to two moral theories. o Utilitarianism o Rights-Based Moral Theory Thesis: I will argue that on both Utilitarianism and a Rights-Based Moral Theory, eating non-human animals produced from factory farms is morally wrong. Moreover, Ill argue that the Rights-Based Theory is the better theory with which to defend the impermissibility of eating non-human animals.

Body Paragraph 1: Introduce Disputed Moral Issue Eating non-human animals is a disputed moral issue because: o Animals suffering, environmental factors, human health o Aesthetic pleasure, jobs, economy Introduce and define key terms: o Direct moral standing o Interests o Rights

Body Paragraph 2: Utilitarianism Define Utilitarianism: An action is right if and only if it would (if performed) likely produce at least as high a utility (net overall balance of welfare) as would any other alternative action one might perform instead. o Define utility Application: explain how the Utilitarian would go about answering the question, Is it morally permissible to eat non-human animals? The Utilitarian would mostly likely say that it is not permissible to eat nonhuman animals because: o On balance, the utility of not eating non-human animals is greater than eating non-human animals. However, there is room for a Utilitarian to argue that eating non-human animals is permissible.

o Animals interests, suffering, death weighed against pleasure humans get from eating non-human animal meat. Cite and discuss Gaverick Mathenys paper Utilitarianism and Animals.

Body Paragraph 3: Rights-Based Theory Define the Rights-Based Moral Theory: An action is right if and only if in performing it either (a) one does not violate the moral rights of others, or (b) in cases where it is not possible to respect all such rights because they are in conflict, ones action is among the best ways to protect the most important rights in the case at hand. o Discuss most important rights. Cite and discuss Tom Regans The Case for Animals Rights and Carl Cohen Do Animals Have Rights? I will argue that Cohens objects are not successful against Regans argument that animals have rights. Application: Since animals have rights, killings them for food is morally problematic according to the Rights-Based Theory.

Body Paragraph 4: Evaluation the Moral Theories I argue here that the Rights-Based Theory is superior to Utilitarianism on the question of eating non-human animals. Utilitarianism faces these problems: o Too much information to consider; leaves us moral skeptics o Utilitarianism may turn out to allow the eating of non-human animals from factory farms despite the horrors that go on in factory farms. ! If animals do have rights, then utilitarianism might allows those rights to be violated.

Conclusion Summarize thesis, sections, and arguments. Gesture to future avenues of inquiry.