The Argument Of Personhood By Immanuel Kant

1227 Words3 Pages

Centuries have past with question on humanity. We still are debating and finding sources to justify what is to be a human and are we really superior to other being. Kant being a successful philosopher of 18th century brought Kantian ethics to life. He talks about personhood in an ontological perspective. His ethics is based on the concept of “duty ethics” and virtue. He believes the only virtue that can be entertained in philosophy is the virtue of good will, as everything else will interfere with it. Immanuel Kant’s personhood argument is well elaborated by Gruen.

To begin with, personhood makes a being valuable and morally considerable. Personhood is defined based on a set of functions and abilities such as being aware of self, the ability to relate and form bonds with other, …show more content…

I agree with the fact that they don’t completely dismiss animal right. I also agree that non-humans cannot be seen as a person. That would mean that feeding on an animal would be wrong as it would violate its rights but feeding on a animal is a natural response of a being on higher level in the food chain. We cannot stop feeding on animals. But, the theory can be further elaborated such as in the case of utilitarian ethics, it would be wrong to kill and animal and feed on it, if it was living in a low quality life in a confined space. That is morally wrong as the rights of the animal has been violated for the sole purpose of feeding humans. On the other hand, if the animal was raised in a healthy environment, lived a healthy life then killing the animal for feeding is not considered wrong. As the animal has lived its life and served its purpose to the food chain. The idea that an animal does not have a stand for itself is looked down upon. When taking moral decision for non-human, some level of interest should be given to the subject matter itself. It is wrong to take a decision about a being without relating to that

Open Document