How Does Kant Treat Animals

849 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: The importance of environmental ethics

In the Vancouver Aquarium, there are many aquatic animals that have been encaged for research purposes and entertainment. Some people may say animals have a right to life, and human have no right to interfere in their natural lives because they are living creatures just like us. However, Kant (239) suggests that “animals are not included in the moral community because they lack rational autonomy”. Based on this principle, in Kant’s view, disagrees having animal right that people do not have an obligation to treat animals as same as other human beings. Kant view animals as “mere means” (Kant, 239) because he believes animals has no self consciousness and they cannot judge decisions by their interest. Animals cannot think rationally and logically in a same way as humans so he excluded animals from the moral community where we solely respect those who have rational autonomy and respect their rights. Kant classified human beings and animals differently. He believes that animals are viewed as values or price for human purpose use because animals only behave responding only to their inclination even though they are sentient, and their values are dependent on our human desire only. Kant also argues that “Our duties towards animals are merely indirect …show more content…

Human beings are arrogant and think they are the superior species in Earth. However, human beings are not born to rule the world, and we are just like one of the creatures that are living in this world. What if there were stronger species in Earth that use human beings just as like we use the animals in the aquarium. Human beings could be used for unwanted performing shows and may lose our lives in vain from deadly experiments. We should not be keeping animals under our property just like we do not own other human beings. They are sentient and have cognitive capacity just like human beings therefore treating harshly or differently is

Show More
Related

  • Grounding For The Metaphysics Of Morals By Immanuel Kant

    1180 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's View Of Ethics And Philosophical Views Of Animal Ethics

    922 Words  | 2 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • Kant Animal Captivity

    1197 Words  | 3 Pages

    In his essay ‘Three Wrong Leads in a Search for an Environmental Ethic: Tom Regan on Animal Rights, Inherent Values, and Deep Ecology’, Partridge claims that Singer and Regan both miss a significant element to the nature of rights: they only have a moral basis, not a biological basis. For Partridge, how alike human beings and other animals are in terms of biology is irrelevant. What matters instead is that other animals show no capacities of rationality or self-conscious, which is what makes us moral. For Partridge, this consequently excludes other animals from being rights

    Read More

  • Heather Murphy's Novel Tank Study

    528 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to Animal Ethics, “A minority of people don’t have any concern for the way animals are treated and are not concerned even when animals are tortured pointlessly. A less extreme version of this view is shown by people who are opposed to torturing animals in some unusual ways or merely for the fun of it, yet don’t think it matters very much that animals suffer because of the way humans treat them as long as humans benefit from it.” This proves that humans shouldn’t neglect one species of animals just because it benefits them. Which there justifies why there should more action taken to give all animals better treatment instead of just one animal species. Some humans don’t believe they do this type of discrimination towards animals. Although not all people do this they may imply it in their actions like, for example with fish. A quote from Animal Ethics states, “For example, one can reject the use of dogs and cats for food (an acceptable practice in some countries) but accept the consumption of, say, chickens and fishes. This is also a form of speciesist discrimination, since all sentient animals have an interest in not being harmed regardless of the species to which they belong.” In the end though you may give more respect to all mammals more action should be taken to respect to all animals no matter if we use them as a resource for food or

    Read More

  • Animal Rights in the Media

    1809 Words  | 4 Pages

    So as all the sources show, humans are heartless and speciest. The way in which humans treat non-human animals needs drastic changing; we should not be exploiting them for any reason at all. There are not here to serve us, they are here for there own purposes. One final question for you to consider; “If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit non-humans?”

    Read More

  • Animal rights

    1093 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...h other and use and understand moral concepts and rules,” (Francione) the members of this community respect each other’s autonomy. Remembering that we are a moral community on our own but accepting and agreeing that animals have a place within it will allow for a more utopian world and provide humans with a better understanding of something besides our own well being.

    Read More

  • Regan's Argument Analysis

    699 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this week’s post, I will discuss why I believe Regan’s argument is better when comparing it to Kant’s argument for the moral status and ethical obligations to animals.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Tom Regan's Animal Rights Human Wrongs

    1052 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Tom Regan’s article “Animal Rights, Human Wrongs,” he explores three different philosophical “accounts” and talks about their view and stances on animal rights and the treatment of animals. The first account that Regan looks at is the Kantian account, which is that humans have obligations to treat animals right only because if humans treated animals poorly it would lead to humans treating one another poorly. Regan says this account to be amiss because it makes us assume that animal interests do not matter and that we are not concerned with the poor treatment of the animal, yet instead we are concerned with the effect the action will have on humans in the future. The second account that Regan analyzes is the cruelty account, which revolves

    Read More

  • Animal Research and Testing, Is it Ethical?

    2169 Words  | 5 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Ethical Treatment of Animals

    2110 Words  | 5 Pages

    If animals don't have rights, does it follow that it is right to treat them however we like? Discuss in relation to at least two approaches to normative ethics.

    Read More

  • Philosophical Argumentative Essay: Do Animals Have Rights

    671 Words  | 2 Pages

    I think the claim that animals have no rights because they are not moral agents is untrue. I think this is untrue because human concepts cannot be applied nor expected from non-human species.

    Read More

  • A Change Of Heart About Animals Essay

    552 Words  | 2 Pages

    A lot of human beings conclude that wild animals do not think right with their conscious. Others think that they lack off of morally ethics. However, some animals pass these requirements. Even though they might not look like us, they still have many similarities that make them a part of us. In the article Animal Rights from BBC UK, they explain and just any reasons why people disagree with the fact they wild animals should have moral rights. One must keep in mind that those animals feel the same pain as

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Human Dignity

    759 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals should be considered to have right to life, and freedom from suffering. Their living environments and their territories should be respected. They should be considered as equal creatures on this earth with equal rights. In those fundamental ways they should be treated like humans. To do less is to consider human beings to be somehow above all of creation, as if our rights are more important. Animals are animals, and humans are humans. However, we all live on this planet we call earth and are connected by a series of communities all around us.

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Essay

    970 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals deserve fair and ethical treatment, however not necessarily equally. Non-human animals and humans are not one in the same, there is no way we will ever be defined and put in the same category. Humans have reference levels, the ability to reason and think logically. We have evolved to the point where we can study, contain, and determine the outcome of basically any animal on Earth, now it’s up to us to ensure they are treated fairly.

    Read More

  • The Difference Between Animals and Humans

    1496 Words  | 3 Pages

    Animal rights are an important topic to discuss and review. The trouble is the vast diversity of how people see humans and animals and how they are different and yet the same. Animals are in every aspect of our lives in how they are utilized to make our lives easier, to sustain us, or as a pet. Unfortunately, the line of animals and humans blurs as the widely known belief that we are a derivation of an animal and we should treat them as we would ourselves. This viewpoint, however, can be taken to an extreme as we see pets that can be pampered quite a bit. Relating back to the four authors in our text, there is considerable controversy on how animals should be treated. While some interesting positions arise with the various authors, to argue that we are animals, or animals are humans seem invalid, as humans have a higher potential to be great than an animal does.

    Read More

More about How Does Kant Treat Animals

Open Document