Kant vs. Regan: Who Has Inherent Rights, and Why?

Utilitarian’s try to separate the action from the actor, and look at the bigger picture over the individual. Followers of Kant, disagree with this approach, and claim that in this system, minorities and individuals are often overlooked and brushed aside. Kant argues that any action cannot be moral unless the motives are moral.

Kant argues that mere conformity with the moral law is not sufficient for moral goodness. I will argue that Kant is right. In this essay I will explain why Kant distinguishes between conforming with the moral law and acting for the sake of the moral law, and what that distinction means to Kant, before arguing why Kant was right.

Cohen defines rights as “a claim that one party may exercise against another”(339). He explains that there are many different types of rights: some moral, some legal; some held by a single person, others held by groups; all differing in what the right entitles one to. Above all this, however, Cohen stresses that rights are a concept rooted in morality. They arise out of the necessity for self-governance among a community, providing standards of conduct that beget personal protection and safety. Therefore, the argument continues that the holders of rights must only be those who are capable of comprehending such concepts as morality and duty and right against wrong. After all, standards can only be held to subjects capable of understanding and achieving them. Because humans are the only

In a world in which people have fundamental disagreements regarding the substance and purpose of human existence and what constitute ‘the good life’, it is a question how should human rights be installed within a nation’s legal system. This essay argues that because we cannot ascertain without doubt what human’s nature is, and in order to prevent atrocities as those in the Second World War: all humans should enjoy, as members of the human species, fundamental rights to secure their existence. Hence, within a nation’s legal system, those are known to be civil rights. Further, political rights should be ensured firstly to the citizens of that nation, but, due to the rapid globalization and the growing fluidity of boarders (for example in Europe)

Utilitarians on the other hand would disagree with Kant on several points. Utilitarians would argue that actions should be decided by the consequences they would produce. Remember that utilitarians believe in the good for the greatest number. In an argument against Kant’s theory, they would say that the

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

The ostensible contradiction between war and morality has resulted in serious moral questions that many ethicists have tried to answer. Is war ever just? Is war just an irremovable part of human nature? Is some war just? The world constantly finds itself in a state of some form of war, and as such it seems that assessing the morality of war is essential.

Aradhya Kunwar 1002375627 James Langlois TUT0015 1. A) In the principle of humanity Immanuel Kant states, “Always treat human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means” (Shafer-Landau, 147). Here by human beings or humanity Kant is referring to “rational and autonomous beings” (Shafer-Landau, 147). Those beings that can distinguish between morally right and wrong, and have the ability to use this knowledge (do what they know to be morally right) to achieve their goals (rational) and those who can use their intellect to make independent decisions (autonomous).

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."#

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.

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

Also if Kant’s consideration for rights is based on being a rational being or a moral agent then many being in society who are held with moral values would not be deserving

He persuasively unveils imperatives both universal and hypothetical, the elements of unconventional practical reason, and examples of extreme controversy that force people to consider situations from a previously unconsidered moral perspective; however, Kant’s initial moral work is not without its critique: ranging from

The doctrine of human rights were created to protect every single human regardless of race, gender, sex, nationality, sexual orientation and other differences. It is based on human dignity and the belief that no one has the right to take this away from another human being. The doctrine states that every ‘man’ has inalienable rights of equality, but is this true? Are human rights universal? Whether human rights are universal has been debated for decades. There have been individuals and even countries that oppose the idea that human rights are for everybody. This argument shall be investigated in this essay, by: exploring definitions and history on human rights, debating on whether it is universal while providing examples and background

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)