I think it’s orthogonal to utilitarianism? Any branch of ethics (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics) can assign value to preventing animal suffering and can, in principle, allow for cross-species comparisons. Not every version of ethical theory allows for cross-species comparisons, but there are versions of deontology, virtue ethics, and non-utilitarian consequentialism that allow for it.
The most obvious example is “intuitionist deontology”, which holds that preventing more suffering is generally better than preventing less suffering, even though preventing suffering is supererogatory.
I think it’s orthogonal to utilitarianism? Any branch of ethics (consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics) can assign value to preventing animal suffering and can, in principle, allow for cross-species comparisons. Not every version of ethical theory allows for cross-species comparisons, but there are versions of deontology, virtue ethics, and non-utilitarian consequentialism that allow for it.
The most obvious example is “intuitionist deontology”, which holds that preventing more suffering is generally better than preventing less suffering, even though preventing suffering is supererogatory.