Immanuel Kant We Have No Duties To Animals

In conclusion, animals help humans by not being as bad and staying

Human beings are considered to be the greatest creations that were given knowledge, skills and power to rule over the entire planet. However, at the same time, their relationship with other animals and its implications in human civilization cannot be denied. Historically, it is proven that for thousands of years, human beings have developed close contact with animals who were their means of living and at the same time often, great companions. Considering the great significance of animals in the lives of human beings, often their relationships were portrayed in literature by authors. It was meant to help the global community to have a clear understanding of the impact that animals have in the lives of human beings which is very much significant.

In the assert of ¨A Change Of Heart about Animals¨ by Jeremy Rifkin, the author strongly supports animals rights and has been working to prove animal intelligences and emotions can see understand through science. Rifkin include pig´s studies at Purdue University, where scientists found the animal can feel depressed under isolated conditions or health problems. Even Dr Arthur Saniotis, fellow with the University's School of Medical Sciences stated, ¨science tells us that animals can have cognitive faculties that are superior to human beings." Due to the rise of the agriculture evolution, people going to consume animals as property and began viewing human as superiority for our exclusive aptitude in reasoning. Human began to break themselves from the nature when technology and standard language imply in everyday life in the world.

Animals as well as humans have been around for an extended period of time showing that there obviously has been some sort of interactions between them throughout the years which may not have always been all the bad. They have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. They are our main source of comfort, happiness, joy, fun, and of course: food. Without animals we would not be at the point in life where we are today. Our next best source of food besides animals would have to be plants and who wants to eat plants all the time for every meal and only that? The treatment of those animals that we use as a food source and even the ones as pets is not always positive. Lobsters, a primary food source for the wealthy, are treated very poorly, for

Kant’s approach to animals and the treatment of them is examined. His approach has a basis of egocentric ideals which can be found, and should be left in, an earlier era. First, I explain his second categorical imperative and how it is applicable to humans but excludes animals. I argue Kant’s second categorical imperative in regards to it only being applicable to humans through his definition of “humanity”. Second, I investigate how Kant believes we should treat animals and his justification for theorizing it. I reason Kant’s assumption that animals are not rational or unable to be self-conscious. Third, I look at Kant’s underlining assumptions of animals and the natural world around him. I allege Kant’s assumptions on animals may lead to environmental degradation. Through this paper I aim to disprove Kant’s assumptions about animals and how his views may perpetuate further damage to the environment.

In his work titles, “Duties Towards Animals,” Immanuel Kant makes the assertion that humans have no obligations towards animals, as humans are superior to other forms of life (“Duties Towards Animals” 564). He defends this position by defining animals to not be self conscious, as Kant only counts beings that are rational and autonomous in his principle of humanity (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 43). This principle states that all humans should always be treated as an end, and never merely as a means to achieve your own personal goals (Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals 42). Kant proceeds to point out that we have a duty to have positive interactions with animals so that humans can practice their gracious behavior, and ultimately apply it to human interactions. It is

The author makes it very evident that the role that animals

It is strikingly obvious that both of these theories exhibit substantial differences in the way in which they determine morality. Utilitarians focus on pleasure and pain whereas Kant concentrates on absolute moral rules and human dignity. Yet how do these variations manifest themselves within the context of animal rights? I will first put forth the traditional Kantian argument regarding the status of animals. The Categorical Imperative makes a distinction between two types of individuals. Rational beings are referred to as "persons" while non-rational being are deemed "things"#. So while a rational being can never be used as a means, "things" exist almost solely for that purpose. From this point the implications concerning animals become clear. "So far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals…are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man."#

As I have clarified earlier, neither the claim that non-human animals have no rights nor the claim that our moral obligations to humans need to be equal to those to non-human animals is cogent enough to conclude that we have no moral obligations to non-human animals. We surely do. A relevant example would be the global species conservation efforts. Over the past fifty years, WWF, one of the world’s largest independent conservation organization, had invested over one billion dollars in more than twelve thousand conservation initiatives and helped conserved a number of species, including elephant, giant panda, polar bear, great apes, etc. Dr. Claude Martin, former Director General of WWF International once said, “our objectives have never been clearer - slow climate change, reduce toxics in the environment, protect our oceans and fresh waters, stop deforestation, and save species." One of the major goals of WWF is to promote the biodiversity of ecosystem and habitats that is vital for the health and livelihoods for all the living organisms on earth. Meanwhile, Dr. Claude Martin’s statement does not show that the motive behind conserving endangered species arises solely out of humans’ moral obligation to non-human animals, but our obligations to these

To give animals their rights would be saying that as human beings, we may not experiment on animals, one cannot breed and kill animals for food or clothes or medicine. One cannot use animals for hard labour, hunt, and cannot display the animal at a zoo or use them for any source of entertainment. In the article “introduction to animal rights,” by Joseph Lubinski, it states,”To the law, animals are property: they are goods to be bought and sold, acquired and maintained.” Human beings have grown accustomed to emotionally attaching themselves to animals that once were solely used for the purpose of hard labour. Advocates against animal rights do not agree that animals should be treated with the same privileges a human being

Seems rhetorical, but the fact is animals live through this everyday, without even given the choice. As humans, we establish our authority among all living beings, but for what reasons? Are humans better than all other species? Or is it true that we should hold a precedence over nonhuman animals? The ultimate question then remains, should animals have as much or equal to the same rights as humans? Their are endless arguments for and against this question, and many sub arguments that go hand in hand with each side. In this paper, I will discuss the definition of what animal rights entails and expand on the history that developed it’s meaning. Furthermore, I will thoroughly discuss, reason, and explain each opinion presented by our current society as well as the positions held by previous philosophers. Lastly, I will draw a conclusion to the opinions presented by discussing my personal position on the argument of animal rights.

‘’Animal nature has analogies to human nature, and by doing our duties to animals in respect of manifestations which correspond to manifestations toward human nature we indirectly do our duty towards humanity.’’(Duties towards animals) Kant, 564

Immanuel Kant believed that only humans are to be treated as end and that animals do not have moral value they are only a “ means to our ends.” Kant did not consider animals to be moral agents and since animals are not moral agents then they are not ends in themselves therefore they do not deserve rights. As a student of philosophy I found myself disagreeing completely with Kant's view on animal rights. I recognize the differences between humans and animals, yet I believe that the differences do not separate animals from deserving rights. Research has proven that many non-humans share capacities that are viewed as unique to humans.

Not a day goes by that a person does not encounter another animal, yes another animal. Most humans today would be appalled to be placed in the same category with animals such as dolphins, hippos, monkeys or even a household dog. Many people today no longer consider themselves part of the animal kingdom, no instead they are supreme beings better than most animal. While a person may choose to share their company with a dog or cat here and there, the human is always in charge. The animal is a pet and is only allowed to be there because a person has allowed it. Nevertheless a pet, and animals in general, are capable to understand everyday human interactions and communicate their needs to a person. Therefore, in today’s society,

Would you think that animality is very different than how we look at humanity. The definition of humanity in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: the quality or state of being kind to other people or to animals. The definition of animality in the Merriam-Webster dictionary is: a quality or nature associated with animals as in vitality or, a natural unrestrained unreasoned response to physical drives or stimuli. I think these two words have more in common than what makes them different.