Regan's Understanding of Utilitarianism is Whack.

One of Regan's arguments is that utilitarianism is an invalid theory to approaching morality. He explains how he sees utilitarianism: that it seeks to validate choices that will bring the most benefit for the most number of individuals. While it is true that utilitarianism seeks to benefit the most, it does not allow for the benefits to be accumulated at the costs of other's lives.

Regan uses an analogy of a cranky, rich aunt that he wishes to murder in order to spread her wealth to charity. He argues that this would be acceptable to utiliarians. I beg to differ. In my understanding of utilitarianism, primarily provided by Peter Singer in his earlier piece, murdering someone in exchange for other's benefits is impermissible. Singer's whole presentation of utilitarianism was based on his attempt to liberate animals from the very things Regan seeks to protect them from: consumption, testing and abuse. Singer is appalled by the consumption of animal flesh. It would seem that he would still be against the death of one cow for the sake of fifty humans.

Regan attempts to reduce utilitarianism to a cold calculation of numbers. Whatever benefits the most individuals should be the right choice, period. However, utilitarianism is not that simple. It accounts for the fact that an action will make an individual suffer more than it will benefit another individual. For Singer, the ultimate interest for an individual is life. Hence, he does not approve of killing one cow to feed fifty people. Therefore, regardless of how many people can be helped by the murder of the rich aunt, it is morally impermissible because it takes away the aunt's most important interest for lesser interests of others. Thus I find Regan’s critique of utilitarianism weak.