Kant s duty to animals

Indirect Theories On indirect theories, animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but may warrant concern only in so far as they are appropriately related to human beings. The implications these sorts of theories have for the proper treatment of animals will be explored after that. Finally, two common methods of arguing against indirect theories will be discussed.

Kant s duty to animals

Animal Rights First, we will consider the traditional view, which is that animals have no rights. Proponents of this view do not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but they do insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves.

We will discuss his theory in more detail in the coming weeks.

Kant s duty to animals

Act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means. Basically, this means that we should respect people by not using them in ways they would not consent to. We should respect people because they are autonomous: Autonomy is the freedom that human beings have to pursue their own ends goals.

Kant believed that autonomy was extremely valuable, but in order to have it one must have free will, which requires having self-consciousness and the capacity to be guided by reason. But animals, according to Kant, are not autonomous.

Therefore, the Categorical Imperative does not apply to them. The end is man. That is, we have no duty to respect or foster the ends of animals.

We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.

Kant s duty to animals

Thus, it is in the self-interest of humanity to treat animals humanely, at least most of the time. Since animals are here only to serve man, causing animal suffering is justified whenever it suits our interests.

This distinguishes him from those who believed that animals are unfeeling automatons. According to Kant, Cruelty to animals is justified in cases where the benefits to humans outweigh the harm to humans. He believed that the scientific value of animal experimentation outweighs the negative effects on the scientists in their dealings with others.

Notice that this consequentialist reasoning is available to Kant only because we have no duties to animals. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.

Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none…The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves.

In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just.

They are in this sense self-legislative, are members of communities governed by moral rules, and do possess rights.

[BINGSNIPMIX-3

Animals do not have such moral capacities. They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore cannot possess rights.Kant's Duty Ethics by Dr.

Jan Garrett Last revised: October 2, For a very substantial internet resource center on Kant, see Kant on the Web..

For the text from which the ideas discussed below are primarily derived see. Animals and Ethics. we also have a duty to refrain from being cruel to them. Kant argues: Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity. Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations of human nature, we indirectly do our duty to humanity.

Kant’s moral theory is based on his view of the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality. No other animal possesses such a propensity for reasoned thought and action, and it is exactly this ability that requires human beings to act in accordance with and for the sake of moral law or duty.

Mar 09,  · Kant here explains the philosophical reasons for the humane treatment of animals. Kant disproves the claim by Baumgarten that humans are above all creation, and therefore have no duties to the animal world.

He states that even though animals are not self-conscious and are simply means to an end, there is some reason that animals.

1. The Moral Considerability of Animals. To say that a being deserves moral consideration is to say that there is a moral claim that this being can make on those who can recognize such claims.

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory ascribed to the German philosopher Immanuel r-bridal.com theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an action can only be good if its maxim – the principle behind it – is duty to the moral r-bridal.coml to Kant's . Kant's Duty Ethics by Dr. Jan Garrett Last revised: October 2, For a very substantial internet resource center on Kant, see Kant on the Web.. For the text from which the ideas discussed below are primarily derived see. Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory ascribed to the German philosopher Immanuel r-bridal.com theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an action can only be good if its maxim – the principle behind it – is duty to the moral law.

Kantian ethics refers to a deontological ethical theory ascribed to the German philosopher Immanuel r-bridal.com theory, developed as a result of Enlightenment rationalism, is based on the view that the only intrinsically good thing is a good will; an action can only be good if its maxim – the principle behind it – is duty to the moral law.

The Moral Status of Animals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)