The kantian view of animal ethics

Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy. Contemporary applications of this issue can range from experimentations on animals for developing medicines or even cosmetics to whether human beings should avoid eating animal-based foods.

How to Write a Summary of an Article? Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy.

Contemporary applications of this issue can range from experimentations on animals for developing medicines or even cosmetics to whether human beings should avoid eating animal-based foods.

The Kantian View of Animal Ethics - Essay Samples

There is a vast spectrum of moral issues that arise with respect to animals. However, most of the morally questionable situations are contingent on one fundamental question: And if so, to what extent?

Although animal moral considerability has peaked the interest of many contemporary philosophers, such as James Rachels and Peter Singer, the question is really an age-old question that can be traced back to Plato and Aristotle.

Immanuel Kant has probed the question of whether an animal has moral considerability.

The Moral Significance of Animals’ Moral Claims

Kant continuously makes the distinction between humans and animals throughout his best-known contributions to moral philosophy. Therefore, I will address and present the counter-argument to the charge of speciesism, one of critical arguments of the animal rights movement, through a Kantian lens.

The kantian view of animal ethics

The term, first coined by psychologist Richard Ryder inis used to describe an arbitrary bias that humans have towards their own species Homo sapiens. The argument is as follows: Just as in racism and sexism the dominating force arbitrarily assumes itself as the normative ideal, in this case whites or males respectively, so too human beings arbitrarily assume themselves as the ideal and to be the only species deserving of morality.

Therefore, because there is no legitimate basis for this distinction, other species of animals should be equally included within the system of morality. They just believe these differences to be irrelevant for delineating the scope of a moral system.

If intelligence were the decisive factor then it would follow that people who are intellectually superior should be treated with superior moral standards. Moreover, some apes could potentially have more intelligence than a human if the human was insane or otherwise intellectually compromised.

Animals and Ethics | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Thus, although intelligence is the distinguishing factor between most human beings and non-humans, it cannot be the sole criterion for defining a moral system.

It would appear that aside from intelligence that has no moral bearing there is no fundamental quality that separates humans and non-humans. Therefore, animals really should be treated with equal moral standards, and those who do not equate moral rights are guilty of speciesism.

So we are left with the daunting question: At first it would appear that Kant presupposes human beings as the only species worthy of morality without giving any explanatory criterion.

The kantian view of animal ethics

However, after a closer examination it becomes apparent that Kant is not guilty of speciesism at all. It is almost as if Kant just substituted the phrase humanity with rational beings.Lastly, I will present a difficulty with accepting the Kantian view of “indirect duties” towards animals.

Moral quandaries regarding animals are still demanding the attention of many philosophers as they attempt to modify and inspect the relationship between morality and social policy. Animals and Ethics What place should non-human animals have in an acceptable moral system?

These animals exist on the borderline of our moral concepts; the result is that we sometimes find ourselves according them a strong moral status, while at other times denying them any kind of moral status at all.

Kant’s Ethics of Metaphysics: A Response To the Charge of Speciesism I. In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists. I will attempt to substantiate Immanuel Kant’s view on animal morality and justify how his philosophy is not in violation of speciesism.

The Kantian View of Animal Ethics Words | 8 Pages. Kant’s Ethics of Metaphysics: A Response To the Charge of Speciesism I. In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists.

The Kantian View of Animal Ethics Words | 8 Pages. Kant’s Ethics of Metaphysics: A Response To the Charge of Speciesism I. In this paper I will present the charge of speciesism contended by many animal right’s activists. I will attempt to substantiate Immanuel Kant’s view on animal morality and justify how his philosophy is not in.

Kantian Ethics, Animals, and the Law Christine M Korsgaard* Abstract—Legal systems divide the world into persons and property, treating animals as property. Some animal rights advocates have proposed treating animals distinctive view about how we establish normative categories and determine.

Utilitarianism - Animal Ethics