Final answer:
The answer is False. Utilitarianism holds that the moral value of actions is based on their consequences for all sentient beings' happiness, which includes non-human animals capable of experiencing pain and pleasure, regardless of whether this causes humans to have sympathy for the animals.
Step-by-step explanation:
False: Utilitarianism implies that we should take into account the capacity of non-human animals to experience pain and pleasure when assessing our dietary and scientific practices that involve animals. The criterion for consideration under utilitarian philosophy is not human sympathy, but rather the capacity to experience pleasure and pain. When evaluating actions, utilitarianism suggests that one should consider the happiness and suffering of all sentient beings affected by the consequences, not just humans or those beings for whom we feel sympathy.
Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, pioneers of the utilitarian framework, advocated for a moral philosophy based on the principle of utility, which dictates that actions are regarded as moral when they result in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Bentham and Mill did not limit the scope of this principle to humans alone; they believed that the capacity for experiencing pleasure and pain is what gives entities moral consideration. Therefore, the utility of non-human animals is an intrinsic part of the moral calculus in utilitarianism, irrespective of human emotional responses.
Mill also introduced the concept of higher and lower pleasures, which suggests that some forms of happiness are more valuable than others. However, when it comes to the treatment of animals within a utilitarian viewpoint, the focus would be on the suffering and enjoyment they are capable of experiencing, rather than the categories of pleasures they can access.