Abstract Effective animal advocates want to help animals as effectively as possible. I explore a popular way of spelling out this idea, according to which, when choosing between two actions to help animals, we should pick the one that maximizes the net aggregate welfare of animals. I argue that, if this is right, then—counterintuitively—we ought to build more confined animal feeding operations. This argument is an application of Parfit's mere addition paradox. My aim in laying out how this applies to animal ethics is to aid animal advocates wishing to examine the philosophical foundations of their advocacy.
Vera Flocke (Thu,) studied this question.