Kant Duty Towards Animals

1801 Words4 Pages

Humans and animals have coexisted on Earth since the beginning of our existence. There is no doubt that our relationship to animals has inspired a plethora of ethical questions on how we should interact with them. German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) presents his account of our duty towards animals, based on his deontological ethics. His account, however, does not adequately answer the question of how we should treat animals. In this paper, I will explain the reasoning behind Kant’s account, as well as present objections to his reasoning. I will conclude that Kant’s account is not coherent or plausible.
Kant's account of our duty towards animals begins with his assertion that we have no direct duties to them because they are not self-aware …show more content…

It is important to note because it strictly applies only to rational beings. In terms of faculties, Kant holds rational ability above all else, claiming only rational beings have intrinsic worth and dignity beyond measure. Animals can in no way be considered rational beings for Kant, since they do not meet his criteria. But let us consider other beings that do not. Infants and children, who may not be autonomous, still do not have the ability to both will and conceive universal laws. On the other hand, there are elderly people who may be too senile to do the same. There is also the case of people with intellectual disabilities or brain damage who may never acquire or reacquire rational ability in their lifetime. Does this mean all these groups lack absolute worth and dignity? Kant accords absolute worth and dignity to all rational beings, but not to all humans. If an animal's lack of rational ability is the only reason we can treat it as an instrument, then is Kant not advocating for some humans to be treated as mere instruments as well? This implication seems unnatural and …show more content…

In fact, his account is somewhat contradictory. He first condemns animal cruelty; even claiming those who practice it may “manifest a small mind”. The sole reason behind his condemnation is that being cruel to animals damages our own humanity. If however, it did not damage us in any way, this argument would be illogical. He then begins to present cases in which cruelty to animals is justified. Ultimately Kant justifies them with the claim that animals are irrational, and are thus instruments of man. However, this claim completely ignores non-rational humans, and implies that we could also treat them as instruments. Additionally, Kant never presents a universal formula to determine when animal cruelty can be morally justified. For these reasons, Kant does not provide a coherent and plausible account of our duties towards

Open Document