Utilitarianism and Animal Rights

Is it ethical for animals to have the same rights as humans? During this paper I will present the views of both sides. I will try my best to give the reader a chance to come to there own unbiased conclusion. I will talk about the key areas of animal ethics. I will present the facts and reasoning behind the arguments over Animal cruelty, testing, hunting, and improper housing. My conclusion will hopefully bring us closer to answering many of the question surrounding “Animal Rights and Ethics”.

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

When comparing Utilitarian view with Tom Regan’s Kantian account of animal rights there couple common things. The first one is maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain from human and animals. The topic is about the animal rights and treatment of the animals. The treatment and rights should be equal to both humans and animals.

Kantian ethics is anthropocentric which means that Kant believes that nature has intrinsic value. Kant believes there should be moral limits on how we use animals.

Billions of animals are killed by human beings each year. Most of these animals live in filthy, unfavorable conditions and undergo painful procedures before being slaughtered for food or other purposes. The way that these animals are treated would never be considered ethical when applied to humans, even though animals and humans have much in common. Humans should not kill or harm animals purposefully, just as they should not purposefully harm other humans.

Regan begins first by trying to identify a process to follow. He starts by identifying the belief of people who feel animals do not have rights. He continues describing the elements of the argument presented by describing the idea that humans have no direct duties to animals, but to the owners of the animals, instead. This is where Regan identifies the Kantian Theory of Indirect Moral Duties to Animals. Regan clarifies the theory by illustrating with an example of a neighbor kicking your dog. With this anecdote he introduces how the wrong done has been done onto you, not your dog. Emotional or property damage, the wrong has been done onto you and not to the dog. This example is used to clarify the indirect duty to one another. The argument continues with the acknowledgement that dogs, like humans feel pain and human pain is what matters. Indirect duty views fail to justify the pain argument.

I will be addressing Kant’s claim that “Our duties towards animal are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” What Kant is trying to say is that our duties towards animals are in a way an indirect indication of our duties as humans. So for this reason, if we are nice to animals, we are indirectly doing our responsibilities as human beings. Kant also believes that doing good to animals can positively improve the way we treat others, therefore, making us better individuals. When Kant said, “if he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” This means that if we are not hurting ourselves by being kind to animals, then we should 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

To Kant, he also thought that the intent of any action must be applicable to everyone and in every scenario, and so he formulated a hierarchy of duties that one must have and maintain or else the morality of society will fall apart. In addition to that, Kant’s philosophy only applied to what he considered “rational beings” (in essence, only humans), which escapes the debacle that Singer talks about (Potter 2). However, despite this, Kant nonetheless still supported the ethical treatment of animals as he viewed it relevant to the intent with which those actions occurred (Potter 6). Kant fundamentally thought that we cannot abuse or mistreat animals as even though we have no duty to their wellbeing as they are not rational beings, we have a duty to ourselves not to act so maliciously towards anything. Thus, even though Kant would not consider animals as something to be included in the topic of human morality, their treatment by humans must be included indirectly

Kant agreed that animals should not just be killed for the pleasure or beat for no good sake. Kant believed this because if a person decides to treat animals abusively or wrongly then that person may encounter problems with other people. Acting inhumanely toward any other person or non-human animal is not morally right in any situation as it will not only affect the subject being treated wrongly but it will affect the person doing the actions character. Kant also believed that it is only morally right for a person to act from duty only and for no other reason. An example would be if an animal was hit by a car and a person stopped to observe the scene.

I would argue yes, based on general definitions of terrorism that animal liberationists and animal rights extremists are terrorists, as their unlawful actions have an indirect affect on the civilian population by driving up prices for animal based products and hindering potential medical advancements. I acknowledge that there that multiple businesses that utilize illegal or amoral procedures when handling their livestock or test subjects, however these companies should be dealt with though policy changes and criminal investigation not by sabotaging their equipment, threatening the livelihood of the employees, and abducting the animals and then releasing them in the wild where they lack the ability to survive or potentially could cause unnecessary

Act-utilitarianism states that the benefits must outweigh the bad, everyone considered. One could argue if animals have rights or not, because animals cannot make moral

What is our duty toward animals? According to Kant, our duties towards them links to our duties toward humanity. We are the result of our actions and they reflect on the kind of person that we are. Being good is not innate but rather cultivate and the result of sacrifices we can’t expect to be good if our action is immoral. ‘’ we can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals’’ (Kant, 564). A deontologist, meanwhile, considers that certain acts are absolutely immoral: for example, treating

On the issue of animal rights, Carl Cohen takes on the perspective of a reformist. This means that he accepts animal experimentation and meat eating, but believes that these institutions need to be improved upon. Cohen approaches the issue of animal rights using the ideas of obligations and rights, with not only the reformist perspective, but with the speciesist perspective. The conclusion he draws is that animals do not necessarily have rights just because humans have moral obligations to animals.

Are there limits on how human beings can legitimately treat non-human animals? Or can we treat them just any way we please? If there are limits, what are they? Are they sufficiently strong, as som e peop le supp ose, to lead us to be veg etarians and to se riously curtail, if not eliminate, our use of non-human animals in `scientific' experiments designed to benefit us? To fully ap preciate this question let me contrast it with two different ones: Are there limits on how we can legitimately treat rocks? And: are there limits on how we can legitima tely treat other human beings? The an swer to th e first ques tion is pre suma bly `No.' Well, that's not q uite right. There are som e