The Kantian View of Animal Ethics

The focus of this paper will be R. G. Frey’s passage in “Moral Standing, the Value of Lives, and Speciesism”. The intended objection of the focus will be two moral theories, Kantianism and Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism being the rebuttal of the Kantianism view on the moral issue at hand.

They make the point that humans are superior because we are capable of things such as reading, writing, and crafting logical thoughts. That reasoning is more than fair; we are humans, the most advanced beings that evolution has yet to create, and we sit perched at the top of the food chain, with all other creation lying feebly at our feet. While it is a justifiable point on a general scale, the subtle irony of Kant’s view establishing that the scope of human rights being narrowed that way because we are rational beings, is an argument that is, itself, rationally flawed.

The question of whether infant and nonhuman animal behavior can be labeled as “moral”, can be answered using the works of Korsgaard, Bloom, Frans de Waal, Bekoff and Pierce. These 5 writers form two camps on either side of this argument.

In “The Case for Animal Rights”, Regan explores different philosophical ideologies regarding the treatment of animals by humans. He finds flaws with each having done so he puts forth the idea of animal rights as the philosophy which solves the conundrum. The ideologies he discards are such:

In Stanley Benn’s “Egalitarianism and Equal Consideration of Interests”, it is explained that animals and human imbeciles are distinguished not because of fundamental inequality, but solely on the basis that the two subjects are of different species. In regard to animals’ moral rights and the infringement of those rights due to the practice of speciesism, Singer employs a utilitarian style of argument to defend animals’ moral rights; in short, the interests of each being which is involved should be taken into consideration and said interests should be given the same weight as that of another being. Speciesism is morally wrong because it attempts to assign undeserved weight to the interests of beings of separate species, solely based off the difference of species. Naturally, or rather unnaturally, human beings have always awarded themselves the utmost importance due to the idea of human dignity, as in humans occupy the central spot within any earthly ranking. Logically, Singer argues that the practice of speciesism is wrong because the conditions in which it exists are synonymous to the conditions which facilitate racism and sexism, before they had been recognized as

nor does man any moral obligation to consider the interests of these animals. In light of this, one must question Cohen’s moral motivations. If it is scientifically proven that caring for animals in a humane manner is absolutely vital to the survival of our own kind, what motives must a man who denies the legitimacy of this necessity have for humanity? It is one thing to make the claim that in certain circumstances, it is vital that humans use animals as a resource, but Cohen goes even further to blatantly disregard animal’s ability to suffer, and he denies all rights of animals due to their lack of “capacity for free moral judgment” (Pojman and Vaughn 817). Cohen also proudly proclaims himself a “speciesist”, meaning that he openly values

Animal rights has been a topic of controversy for the last decade and the question arises on whether or not animals have rights. In the quote from Arthur Schopenhauer’s The Basis of Morality, the main argument is that the only way humans can remain moral is if we treat all animals with compassion. Schopenhauer uses different comparisons in the short quote to improve the impact on the reader as well as show the way humans view the animals being treated. With that, it is evident that animals do need basic rights which can potentially be achieved through proper compassion and care. These animals need to have the ability to freely express their personalities as well as the proper attention and interactions on a daily basis.

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."#

A clear comparison of the prejudice between speciesism and racism is presented through contemporary American philosopher Carl Cohen. Cohen is one academic who calls himself a proud speciesist. Cohen has a somewhat Darwinian approach to speciesism, arguing that every species on the planet is struggling and fighting to claw their way to the top, that this is how it should be and this is how it is. Each species should only be concerned about looking after itself, and due to humans currently being at the top, this shows we are the strongest of the species and can do whatever we please with those below us. This argument from Cohen is the exact one which slave owners used to rationalise and justify the domination over indigenous people and Africans. Cohens given defence of speciesism directly links and compares with the prejudice of racism from the slave trade, a prejudice all are disgusted with, and so presents how the prejudice of speciesism is definitely comparable to racism.

A highly popularized and debated topic in our modern society is the promotion of animal equality or animal rights. Many people, philosophers included, have a wide range of opinions on this topic. Two of the philosophers studied in class who discussed animal rights were Peter Singer and Carl Cohen. Singer, who has the more extreme view on animal rights, believes that all animals are equal and that the limit of sentience is the only defensible boundary of concern for the interest of others (Singer, 171). While Cohen, who’s view is more moderate than that of Singer’s, believes that animals do not have rights, stating that to have rights one must contain the ability for free moral judgment. Though, he does believe that we as

This implies that those whom are involved with cruelty towards animals become compromised in their ethics concerning mankind. Allowing such behavior ultimately be harmful towards humanity. Moreover, Kant suggests that rational humans will feel a sense of guilt when killing an animal without having a reason. Yet, humans should feel a sense of

Humans may have been supposed to be vegetarians, but we are the rulers of the food chain. This paper will be addressing the issues of the roles and morality involving animals on a religious level. Christianity and Buddhism both agree and disagree concerning what beasts means to us. Using the teachings and proverbs of Jesus and Buddha, we will figure out the rightful place of animals in this world. While Buddhism has a more detailed view of how we need to regard animals, I will be using Christianity as our primary example because I believe it to be how this relationship between humans and animals is rightfully supposed to be.

Kant proceeds to claim “Some bullshit about respecting people pulled form the text” (bulshit 95) meaning that although we should generally respect other persons’ Humanity, however we can do with animals as we see fit. To many people this is a far more comfortable modus operandi then the utilitarian method that ignores the Humanity of individuals for the gratification of the vague ideal of overall betterment. This familiar concept encouraging one to treat others with respect provides one with moral grounds to value people on the sole basis of

Animals are designed to provide good to humans, and the ecosystem which resembles as a disposal service. In return for the goods and the services, animals receive the confinement, toxins, death, which is where the economy breaks down (Stibbe 67). The animal liberation movement, in contrast with wildlife conservation, focuses specifically on the animals who suffer most at the hands of humans. The ones whose relationships with humans consist of little more than abuse and exploitation. It was a discourse to promote a change in human/animal relationships, yet this discourse has its limits, Tester (199I: 196) sums up one limit to the animal liberation movement “ The animals are nothing more than objects to which something is done (Stibbe 76).” Animal agency is a contentious philosophical issue. There are theorists who are important to attribute agency to animals at all, who fear it as an anthropomorphic and therefore does not respect the different nature of animals. The discourse of animal rights is common with the animal liberation, but calls for legal rights to be created as a certain species of animals. Animals are considered to be species, resources, subspecies,

The moral law is acting morally all the time and for the right reasons. The moral law is a law that can be optionally obeyed; to obey the moral law is to consciously use your personal freedom to do the right things. This runs counter to behavior as a result of desires or impulses; the ability to follow the moral law is what to Kant, separates us from animals. This view of human rights implies that the rights of mankind is superior to that of animals. To Kant, other species of animals do not have the ability to follow a moral law and thus, they do not stand equal to humans. The source of human rights in Kant’s eyes could discount some handicapped people, because they may not have the mental capacity or ability to act in a way that follows the moral law. Personally, I disagree with his views. They are way to strict and discount the notion that there are plenty of circumstances in which doing something that isn't necessarily considered moral may be the right course of action. Every situation has different circumstances and plenty of situations arise where doing something that shouldn't be done all the time, may be the most fitting course of action. Take for example the epidemic that is human overpopulation. It is already a major problem, but it is safe to say that it is only going to get worse. A time is going to come where it is apparent that our cannot sustain the amount