Compliance with Muslim and Jewish requirements for the slaughter of animals may conflict with a concern for animal welfare and minimization of suffering. A utilitarian normative approach to this conflict may turn out to be promising, provided that two conditions are met. Firstly, utilitarianism must be shown to be compatible with pluralism: although its theory of value is seen as a monistic one, it can simply be construed as a theory requiring that all moral discussion be translatable into
pleasure/pain or preference satisfaction. Secondly, utilitarianism must be seen as a "progressive" theory, in the sense that it does not take present moral beliefs as untouchable or immutable, nor does it merely try to account for our moral intuitions; it will rather press for their gradual change and for "moral reform". Some possible repercussions of this view on the problem at issue will be expounded.
