Also, yes, in answer to your question, if it could be determined what effect it would have on net happiness and if rule utilitarianism wasn't necessary due to strict utilitarianism breaking down due to information disparities.
I've never heard an argument about "so rape / taking someones internal organs is FINE EH EH EH?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" in which someone actually pointed out why it isn't beyond "I feel it isn't". Of course, people feeling bad about x y or z is, in itself, creating pain, so it can be fitted into a utilitarian equation. But then, as it might be applied to animal suffering, you lose out even WORSE than the argument I just made about whether animals can climb the hierarchy of needs etc because then the questions starts to turn on "but DO people feel bad for chicken little" and this thread seems to indicate they do not.
Incidentally, faggot, your government already runs on utilitarianism. Is it wrong to let people drown in the sea? Yes? Then why does anybody ever drown in the sea around the U.S. or Europe when the government MUST SPEND EVERY RESOURCE NECESSARY TO PREVENT THIS. Ans = spending money on things that make most number of people happy. Or at least justifying it thusly.
Sorry. We already run the world.