Immanuel Kant On Animal Rights

It is important to understand what Kant means when claiming that it is morally wrong to use another person merely as a means to your end when making the decision whether or not

Non-human animals should have the same rights that humans have such as not being used as food, clothing, entertainment, or experimentation.

Kant’s second categorical imperative is intended to be a framework to apply his ethics in a practical sense. However, it is only written to be applicable to humans and it excludes animals. Kant states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (202). First, to explain the use of the word “humanity”. Kant refers to three components to explain humanity: rationality, absolute worth, and dignity (182). Thus, Kant implies that animals are not rational; therefore, do not have absolute worth and

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

Animals cannot posses’ rights, as they do not have the above capacities. The author points out that it doesn’t make sense when humans and nonhuman animals should be treated equally. A human knows that it is morally incorrect to kill a child, but an animal does not. For instance, “ Does a lion have a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten?”

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

While Carl Cohen’s framework for determining that animals do not have rights is logical in some sense, his application is missing important considerations. He solely evaluates the consequences for humanity if animals did indeed have rights, and fails to consider what consequences animals may face if humans conclude that animals do not have any rights. Cohen states that although animals, from his view, may not have rights, humanity still has an obligation to treat them humanely. In an ideal world, humans would respect this obligation to animals. But as many of our accepted practices towards animals demonstrate, a typical person who does not recognize animal rights does not accept this obligation. People may treat their pets humanely, but humane

Immanuel Kant, a well-known eighteenth century German philosopher, offers a more convincing theory of justice than that supported by utilitarian or Lockean theory by defining what it means to act autonomously. Autonomy, meaning self-govern, regards to ones actions as being a result of their own free will. Although Kant attempted to look for another way for people to be good outside of religion, he believed that people had natural rights that were god given. Kant is best known for his idea of categorical imperative. Essentially this means do to others, as you would like others to do to you. A central theory Kant had was that it is important to treat people as an end of themselves rather than means of an end. It was Kant’s idea of treating

This viewpoint advanced by Kant is further expounded upon in his essay "Our Duties to Animals". Here he explains that we have no direct duties to animals because they are not self-conscious, rational moral agents. Instead we have indirect duties to human beings in regards to animals. We should therefore not be cruel to animals because "he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men."# According to Kant, " we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals."#

We eat meat, we use woollen clothes. Sometimes we buy pets, such as-cat, puppy, bird etc. as our hobby. Zoo was our favourite place when we were child. We pass our time watching various types of animals in National Geography channel. After all these, we never give our attention to what impact they have for our activities. There is always a question about ‘’animal rights’’. Though both human and animal are the creation of God, human being never faces that much argument about having rights but animal does. After studying on this topic, I understood that Most of the argument goes against having animal rights. There are less right preserved for non-human being in environmental ethics.

The concept of animals rights is based on the belief that nonhuman animals have similar interests and rights to those of human beings. It would be considered, not only unlawful, but inhumane to hunt, test, and use humans for medical research. However, we do exactly that to nonhuman animals in hopes of creating a better and safer life for existing humans. Do we do it because human beings, as opposed to nonhuman animals, hold a special place in nature? That human good is the only good? Or is because human individuals hold true to the “top of of food

Kant had a different ethical system which was based on reason. According to Kant reason was the fundamental authority in determining morality. All humans possess the ability to reason, and out of this ability comes two basic commands: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. In focusing on the categorical imperative, in this essay I will reveal the underlying relationship between reason and duty.

Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.

Non-human animals are given rights only because of their interactions with human beings. Without involvement with humans, animals do not deserve rights. It is through this interaction with humans that animals are even given moral consideration. We do not give rights to a rock simply because it is a creation of Mother Nature, similarly non-human animals do not have rights unless it is in regards to humans. As pointed out by Jan Narveson "morality is a sort of agreement among rational, independent, self-interested persons who have something to gain from entering into such an agreement" (192). In order to have the ability to obtain rights one must be consciously able to enter into an agreement, non-human animals are

The topic that I am choosing to examine for my paper is about animals that are used in research and the rights they they do or do not have. The reason that I chose this particular topic is because that it is a topic that is very significant to me. I am currently going to Delaware technical Community College to become a Veterinary technician. My lifelong dream has always been to help and save animals, Any creature great or small animals used in research, mistreated, neglected and abused is not something that sits to well with me and many other animal rights activist.. When it come to the moral ethics and moral status of animals these are problematic subjects. You are going to have two very opposing sides, some people are tolerable with animals being used in animal research because they feel that these animals have no moral status, they are not autonomous, and they are not sentient, and they are here for our misuse, abuse and consumption. The first theory that I will be looking at is deontological theory of Immanuel Kant, and autonomy. Kant’s theoretical approach is that of an indirect theory. Indirect theories state that animals do not warrant our moral concern on their own, but they may warrant our concern as they relate to humans. I will also examine the direct theory approach of the Utilitarian theory in regards to animals and animal research. Animal rights has been an issue since man enslaved the first animal to do its bidding. For centuries philosophers have