Well, no, that can't be right.
There's a continuum of.. mental complexity, to name something random, between modern dolphins and rocks. Homo sapiens also fits on that curve somewhere.
You might argue that mental complexity is not the right parameter to use, but unless you're going to argue that rocks are deserving of utility you'll have to agree to either an arbitrary cut-off point or some mapping between $parameter and utility-deservingness, practically all possible such parameters having a similar continuous curve.
As I understand it, a util is equal regardless of what generates it, but the ability to generate utils out of states of the world varies from species to species. A rock doesn't experience utility, but dogs and humans do. If a rock could experience utility, it would be equally deserving of it.
r/Fitness does a weekly "Moronic Monday", a judgment-free thread where people can ask questions that they would ordinarily feel embarrassed for not knowing the answer to. I thought this seemed like a useful thing to have here - after all, the concepts discussed on LessWrong are probably at least a little harder to grasp than those of weightlifting. Plus, I have a few stupid questions of my own, so it doesn't seem unreasonable that other people might as well.