Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Relationship of humans and animals
Relationship of humans and animals
Immanuel kant moral theory essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Relationship of humans and animals
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
The long-term aim is to develop an approach to ethics that will help resolve contemporary issues regarding animals and the environment. In their classical formulations and as recently revised by animal and environmental ethicists, mainstream Kantian, utilitarian, and virtue theories have failed adequately to include either animals or the environment, or both. The result has been theoretical fragmentation and intractability, which in turn have contributed, at the practical level, to both public and private indecision, disagreement, and conflict. Immensely important are the practical issues; for instance, at the public level: the biologically unacceptable and perhaps cataclysmic current rate of species extinctions, the development or preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas, the global limitations on the sustainable distribution of the current standard of living in the developed nations, and the nonsustainability and abusiveness of today's technologically intense crop and animal farming. For individuals in their private lives, the choices include, for example: what foods to eat, what clothing to wear, modes of transportation, labor-intensive work and housing, controlling reproduction, and the distribution of basic and luxury goods. What is needed is an ethical approach that will peacefully resolve these and other quandaries, either by producing consensus or by explaining the rational and moral basis for the continuing disagreement.
“[Kant] fails… to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical (not to say physical) impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct. All he shows is that the consequences of their universal adoption would be such as no one would choose to incur.”
This forces the definition of rational beings to be extremely significant. For instance, some animals could be easily disputed as rational, and a case could also be made for the mentally handicapped. Since Kant’s guidelines for rationality are reason, will, and autonomy, it is quite clear that many lives will not suffice, regardless of how ambiguous the requirements are for a given species. This exclusion creates some worrying interpretations of how, or whether Kantian ethics defends any outliers from exploitation. If Kant had intended for their protection, he would have mentioned such. Therefore, it must be concluded that Kantian ethics fails to protect animal rights or impaired
The second act of Kant’s categorical imperative pertains to how we treat others. According to Kant, we must “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an
Thus, Kant gives cases in which duty and self-interest clash, with the goal that it is clear that the operator is persuaded singularly obligation. He highlights the two cases of cooperative attitude that Kant refers to are the to a great degree distressed individual who chooses not to confer suicide since it is unethical, and immoral. An individual's duty as per Kant, takes the type of the ethical law. The moral law, dependably applies to us, and applies to everybody in the same way. In light of this, Kant depicts the moral law as a categorical imperative that is an exemption command. The moral law is widespread hence very diverse for every individual. Conversely, moral laws are generally applied to each operator in the same way. Kant gives various diverse plans of the categorical imperative, which he claims are comparable to each other in importance. The most well known is the universal law formulation. As a universal law, it requires that an individual ought to act just in a manner that the principle you act under can turn into an all inclusive law. Kant contends that it is constantly shameless to
He begins his statements by outlining the conditions on which we treat animals. From a Kantian perspective, he explains that our most direct contact with an animal is when we consume them.
First, Universal Law. Can everyone in the world test on animals without a logical contradiction? Well, if you test on all animals, it could have substantial effects on reproduction rate among these species. Some animals could very well go extinct if every one was test on. So, the first part of the categorical imperative fails, because if you run out of test subjects, that act is no longer Universal Law. However, the second part passes. Animals are not considered humanity, so you can use them as a means to an end as much as you desire. It passes the third principle in the same way. Animals don’t have practical reason, so you can’t restrict their practical reason. But since one of the principles fail, the categorical imperative itself fails, so Kant would view it as immoral if acted
Michael Pollan presents many convincing arguments that strengthen his position on whether slaughtering animals is ethical or not. He believes that every living being on this planet deserves an equal amount of respect regardless of it being an animal or human, after all humans are also animals. “An Animal’s place” by Michael Pollan is an opinionated piece that states his beliefs on whether animals should be slaughtered and killed to be someone’s meal or not. In his article, Pollan does not just state his opinions as a writer but also analyzes them from a reader’s point of view, thus answering any questions that the reader might raise. Although Pollan does consider killing and slaughtering of animals unethical, using environmental and ethical
As an advocate of animal rights, Tom Regan presents us with the idea that animals deserve to be treated with equal respect to humans. Commonly, we view our household pets and select exotic animals in different regard as oppose to the animals we perceive as merely a food source which, is a notion that animal rights activists
... value through discussing duty in light of a priori and experience. In conclusion, he suggests that because actions depend on specific circumstances, a priori beliefs cannot be extracted from experience. People’s experiences and actions are based on circumstantial motivations; thus they can’t conform to categorical imperatives either because categorical imperatives are principles that are intrinsically good and must be obeyed despite the circumstance or situation. Kant concludes that rational beings are ends in themselves and that principle is a universal law, which comes from reason and not experience.
Kantians believe that we should avoid treating others as mere means.(877) In other words we should not make false promises, physically force a person to do what we want, use threats, or take advantage of someone’s desperate situation and make unjust offers.(877-878) These are examples of treating people as mere means because these people will not have the opportunity to make a reasonable choice for themselves. Either because they don’t have the complete information, their wellbeing is on the line, or simply because there is no just offer on the table. We are also to treat others as an end in themselves(878), meaning that we have to respect their autonomy, and their freedom to make choices for themselves. But according to O’Neil it’s not enough to treat others as an end in themselves. In her duty of beneficence she argues that we cannot treat others as end in themselves if they have limited rationality or autonomy (878-879). She derives her idea from Kant’s idea of imperfect duty which aims to promote helping others to reach their potential.(). Therefor based on these principles it makes sense for us to help reduce world famine, because the people affected by this issues are very venerable, and their autonomy is undermined. The only way to ensure that they are treated as rational human beings is if we helped them. It’s important to
While Kant’s theory may seem “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008) now, it was ruled as acceptable and rational behavior then. Kant believed that any moral or ethical decision could be achieved with consistent behavior. While judgment was based on reason, morals were based on rational choices made by human beings (Freeman, 2000). A human’s brain is the most advanced in the animal kingdom. Not only do human beings work on instinct, but they have the ability to sort out situations in order to make a decision. This includes weighing the pros and cons of decisions that could be made and how they affect others either positively or negatively. This is called rational thought. Kant believed that any human being able to rationalize a decision before it was made had the ability to be a morally just person (Freeman, 2000). There were certain things that made the decision moral, and he called it the “Categorical Imperative” (Johnson, 2008). If someone was immoral they violated this CI and were considered irrational. The CI is said to be an automatic response which was part of Kant’s argument that all people were deserving of respect. This automatic response to rational thinking is where he is considered, now, to be “overly optimistic” (Johnson, 2008).
Finally, Kant saw the world as he wanted to see it, not the reality of it. In reality human beings are social animals that can be deceived, and can become irrational, this distinction is what makes us human, and it is that which makes us make mistakes. Kant states good arguments in his essay however his belief that people are enslaved and shackled by the “guardians” when he writes “shackles of a permanent immaturity” (Kant, 1) is sometimes absurd when the same guardians are the people that encourage our minds of thinking.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1992. Call Number: HV4711.A5751992. Morris, Richard Knowles, and Michael W. Fox, eds. On the Fifth Day, Animal Rights. and Human Ethics.
Humans place themselves at the top of the sociological tier, close to what we as individuals call our pets who have a sentimental value in our lives. Resource animal’s on the other hand have a contributory value within our lives: they provide us with meat and other important resources. In order to determine the boundaries between how we treat animals as pets and others simply as resources, utilitarians see these “resource animals” as tools. They contemplate the welfare significances of animals as well as the probable welfares for human-beings. Whereas deontologists see actions taken towards these “resources animals” as obligations regardless of whom or what they harm in the process. The objection to these theories are, whose welfare are we