Magel God loved the birds and invented trees.
Animal Rights First, we will consider the traditional view, which is that animals have no rights. Proponents of this view do not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but they do insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves.
We will discuss his theory in more detail in the coming weeks. Act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.
Basically, this means that we should respect people by not using them in ways they would not consent to. We should respect people because they are autonomous: Autonomy is the freedom that human beings have to pursue their own ends goals. Kant believed that autonomy was extremely valuable, but in order to have it one must have free will, which requires having self-consciousness and the capacity to be guided by reason.
But animals, according to Kant, are not autonomous. Therefore, the Categorical Imperative does not apply to them.
The end is man. That is, we have no duty to respect or foster the ends of animals. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals. Thus, it is in the self-interest of humanity to treat animals humanely, at least most of the time.
Since animals are here only to serve man, causing animal suffering is justified whenever it suits our interests. This distinguishes him from those who believed that animals are unfeeling automatons.
According to Kant, Cruelty to animals is justified in cases where the benefits to humans outweigh the harm to humans. He believed that the scientific value of animal experimentation outweighs the negative effects on the scientists in their dealings with others.
Notice that this consequentialist reasoning is available to Kant only because we have no duties to animals. Notwithstanding all such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another.
Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none…The holders of rights must have the capacity to comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves.
In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what is just.
They are in this sense self-legislative, are members of communities governed by moral rules, and do possess rights. Animals do not have such moral capacities.
They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore cannot possess rights. In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate.
But that is absurd. This proves [the critic concludes] that rights do not depend on the presence of moral capacities. Humans are of such a kind that they may be the subject of experiments only with their voluntary consent.
The choices they make freely must be respected. Animals are of such a kind that it is impossible for them, in principle, to give or withhold voluntary consent or to make a moral choice. A second objection, also often made, may be paraphrased as follows: Animals also reason; animals also communicate with one another; animals also care passionately for their young; animals also exhibit desires and preferences.
Features of moral relevance - rationality, interdependence, and love -- are not exhibited uniquely by human beings.
Therefore [this critic concludes], there can be no solid moral distinction between humans and other animals. It is not the ability to communicate or to reason, or dependence on one another, or care for the young, or the exhibition of preference, or any such behavior that marks the critical divide.
Humans act immorally often enough, but only they -- never wolves or monkeys -- can discern, by applying some moral rule to the facts of a case, that a given act ought or ought not to be performed.
Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten? Such questions, mistakenly invoking the concept of right where it does not belong, do not make good sense.So there’s the reason you weep at the Sarah McLachlan commercials (the song doesn’t help), and why I cried for days after my cat died, and why we talk a lot about animals who were killed unfairly.
A farm animal's body is considered a plaything used for profit. For years, women in the animal rights movement have complained of a predatory permissiveness at conferences and in offices, in.
Downward Spirals: Why we Can’t just Treat the Tail End of our Symptoms.
The Elephant Ecosystem Every time you read, share, comment or heart you help an article improve its Rating—which helps Readers see important issues & writers win $$$ from Elephant. First of all, I get the point made by animal-rights activists. Their primary arguments (that eating other animals is unnecessary, that their lives are as valuable as ours, that eating meat has catastrophic effects on our environment) are, to be honest, unanswerable.
Animal lovers go to wildlife sanctuaries because they want to see animals up close and because they believe sanctuaries are in the business of taking care of animals that have nowhere else to go. So when we say that breakups, especially when kids are involved, are really hard, I think we gloss over what it feels like when another man has artfully found his way into our ex’s heart, into the lives of our children, and takes our place, at least in the physical sense—practically by default.