① Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights

Sunday, December 19, 2021 5:15:44 AM

Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights

Karl Popper modified Kant's ethics and focused Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights the subjective dimensions of his moral theory. First, I explain his second categorical imperative and how it is Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights to humans but excludes animals. Phelps, Homicide detective salary Newkirk, Ingrid Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights explicit Comparing The Interaction Between Katys Two Sisters And Rob In The Woods Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights the animal Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights are intended to highlight the inhumane cruelty towards animals. Act as to treat Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights, both Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means. Society and Animals 15 : — Proctor, Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights N.

Kant \u0026 Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35

With the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries that led to the great cultural movement known as the Enlightenment, these previously accepted religious doctrines were increasingly challenged as faith in God, scripture, and organized religion began to decline among the intelligentsia—that is, the educated elite. If there is no God—and therefore no guarantee of cosmic justice ensuring that the good guys will be rewarded and the bad guys will be punished—why should anyone bother trying to be good? But is this actually contrary to what we might call moral common sense? Most of us judge actions more for their motivation than by their consequences.

I could save a life at the risk of my own, and the person I save could turn out to be a serial killer. Or I could accidentally kill someone in the course of robbing them, and in doing so might unwittingly save the world from a terrible tyrant. Consider anything you think of in terms of being "good"—health, wealth, beauty, intelligence, and so on. For each of these things, you can also likely imagine a situation in which this so-called good thing is not good after all. For instance, a person can be corrupted by their wealth.

The robust health of a bully makes it easier for him to abuse his victims. Even happiness is not good if it is the happiness of a sadist torturing unwilling victims. By contrast, goodwill, says Kant, is always good—in all circumstances. What, exactly, does Kant mean by goodwill? The answer is fairly simple. A person acts out of goodwill when they do what they do because they think it is their duty—when they act from a sense of moral obligation. Much of the time, we're simply following our inclinations—or acting out of self-interest. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, however, no one deserves credit for pursuing their own interests. It comes naturally to us, just as it comes naturally to every animal.

What is remarkable about human beings, though, is that we can, and sometimes do, perform an action from purely moral motives—for example, when a soldier throws himself on a grenade, sacrificing his own life to save the lives of others. Or less dramatically, I pay back a friendly loan as promised even though payday isn't for another week and doing so will leave me temporarily short of cash. Saying that people should do their duty from a sense of duty is easy—but how are we supposed to know what our duty is? Sometimes we may find ourselves facing moral dilemmas in which it's not obvious which course of action is morally correct. According to Kant, however, in most situations are duty is obvious. Kant offers several different versions of this categorical imperative.

Could I sincerely and consistently wish for a world in which everyone behaved this way? According to Kant, if our action is morally wrong, the answers to those questions would be no. Could I wish for a world in which everyone broke their promises when keeping them was inconvenient? Kant argues that I could not want this, not least because in such a world no one would make promises since everyone would know that a promise meant nothing. To treat someone as a means to your own ends or purposes is to not respect this fact about them. For instance, if I get you to agree to do something by making a false promise, I am manipulating you. In this way, I have undermined your rationality. This is even more obvious if I steal from you or kidnap you in order to claim a ransom.

Treating someone as an end, by contrast, involves always respecting the fact that they are capable of free rational choices which may be different from the choices you wish them to make. Jean-Paul Sartre rejects the central Kantian idea that moral action consists in obeying abstractly knowable maxims which are true independently of situation, that is, independent of historical, social, and political time and place. He believes that although the possible, and therefore the universal, is a necessary component of action, any moral theory which ignores or denies the peculiar mode of existence or condition of persons would stand self-condemned. Virtue ethics is a form of ethical theory which emphasizes the character of an agent, rather than specific acts; many of its proponents have criticised Kant's deontological approach to ethics.

Elizabeth Anscombe criticised modern ethical theories, including Kantian ethics, for their obsession with law and obligation. In his work After Virtue , Alasdair MacIntyre criticises Kant's formulation of universalisability, arguing that various trivial and immoral maxims can pass the test, such as "Keep all your promises throughout your entire life except one. Roman Catholic priest Servais Pinckaers regarded Christian ethics as closer to the virtue ethics of Aristotle than Kant's ethics. He presented virtue ethics as freedom for excellence , which regards freedom as acting in accordance with nature to develop one's virtues. Initially, this requires following rules—but the intention is that the agent develop virtuously, and regard acting morally as a joy.

This is in contrast with freedom of indifference , which Pinckaers attributes to William Ockham and likens to Kant. On this view, freedom is set against nature: free actions are those not determined by passions or emotions. There is no development or progress in an agent's virtue, merely the forming of habit. This is closer to Kant's view of ethics, because Kant's conception of autonomy requires that an agent is not merely guided by their emotions, and is set in contrast with Pinckaer's conception of Christian ethics.

A number of philosophers including Elizabeth Anscombe , Jean Bethke Elshtain , Servais Pinckaers , Iris Murdoch , and Kevin Knight [78] have all suggested that the Kantian conception of ethics rooted in autonomy is contradictory in its dual contention that humans are co-legislators of morality and that morality is a priori. They argue that if something is universally a priori i. On the other hand, if humans truly do legislate morality, then they are not bound by it objectively, because they are always free to change it. This objection seems to rest on a misunderstanding of Kant's views since Kant argued that morality is dependent upon the concept of a rational will and the related concept of a categorical imperative: an imperative which any rational being must necessarily will for itself.

Furthermore, the sense in which our wills are subject to the law is precisely that if our wills are rational, we must will in a lawlike fashion; that is, we must will according to moral judgments we apply to all rational beings, including ourselves. That is, an autonomous will, according to Kant, is not merely one which follows its own will, but whose will is lawful-that is, conforming to the principle of universalizability, which Kant also identifies with reason. Ironically, in another passage, willing according to immutable reason is precisely the kind of capacity Elshtain ascribes to God as the basis of his moral authority, and she commands this over an inferior voluntarist version of divine command theory , which would make both morality and God's will contingent.

Kant and Elshtain, that is, both agree God has no choice but to conform his will to the immutable facts of reason, including moral truths; humans do have such a choice, but otherwise their relationship to morality is the same as that of God's: they can recognize moral facts, but do not determine their content through contingent acts of will. Kant believed that the shared ability of humans to reason should be the basis of morality, and that it is the ability to reason that makes humans morally significant.

He, therefore, believed that all humans should have the right to common dignity and respect. Eaton argues that, according to Kant's ethics, a medical professional must be happy for their own practices to be used by and on anyone, even if they were the patient themselves. For example, a researcher who wished to perform tests on patients without their knowledge must be happy for all researchers to do so.

Medical research should be motivated out of respect for the patient, so they must be informed of all facts, even if this would be likely to dissuade the patient. Jeremy Sugarman has argued that Kant's formulation of autonomy requires that patients are never used merely for the benefit of society, but are always treated as rational people with their own goals. Hinkley notes that a Kantian account of autonomy requires respect for choices that are arrived at rationally, not for choices which are arrived at by idiosyncratic or non-rational means.

He argues that there may be some difference between what a purely rational agent would choose and what a patient actually chooses, the difference being the result of non-rational idiosyncrasies. Although a Kantian physician ought not to lie to or coerce a patient, Hinkley suggests that some form of paternalism —such as through withholding information which may prompt a non-rational response—could be acceptable. She proposes that a woman should be treated as a dignified autonomous person, with control over their body , as Kant suggested. She believes that the free choice of women would be paramount in Kantian ethics, requiring abortion to be the mother's decision.

Dean Harris has noted that, if Kantian ethics is to be used in the discussion of abortion, it must be decided whether a fetus is an autonomous person. Cohen believes that even when humans are not rational because of age such as babies or fetuses or mental disability , agents are still morally obligated to treat them as an ends in themselves , equivalent to a rational adult such as a mother seeking an abortion. Kant viewed humans as being subject to the animalistic desires of self-preservation , species-preservation, and the preservation of enjoyment. He argued that humans have a duty to avoid maxims that harm or degrade themselves, including suicide , sexual degradation, and drunkenness.

He admitted sex only within marriage, which he regarded as "a merely animal union. Feminist philosopher Catharine MacKinnon has argued that many contemporary practices would be deemed immoral by Kant's standards because they dehumanize women. Sexual harassment , prostitution , and pornography , she argues, objectify women and do not meet Kant's standard of human autonomy. Commercial sex has been criticised for turning both parties into objects and thus using them as a means to an end ; mutual consent is problematic because in consenting, people choose to objectify themselves.

Alan Soble has noted that more liberal Kantian ethicists believe that, depending on other contextual factors, the consent of women can vindicate their participation in pornography and prostitution. Because Kant viewed rationality as the basis for being a moral patient —one due moral consideration—he believed that animals have no moral rights. Animals, according to Kant, are not rational, thus one cannot behave immorally towards them. Ethicist Tom Regan rejected Kant's assessment of the moral worth of animals on three main points: First, he rejected Kant's claim that animals are not self-conscious. He then challenged Kant's claim that animals have no intrinsic moral worth because they cannot make a moral judgment.

Regan argued that, if a being's moral worth is determined by its ability to make a moral judgment, then we must regard humans who are incapable of moral thought as being equally undue moral consideration. Regan finally argued that Kant's assertion that animals exist merely as a means to an end is unsupported; the fact that animals have a life that can go well or badly suggests that, like humans, they have their own ends.

Christine Korsgaard has reinterpreted Kantian theory to argue that animal rights are implied by his moral principles. Kant believed that the Categorical Imperative provides us with the maxim that we ought not to lie in any circumstances, even if we are trying to bring about good consequences, such as lying to a murderer to prevent them from finding their intended victim. Kant argued that, because we cannot fully know what the consequences of any action will be, the result might be unexpectedly harmful. Therefore, we ought to act to avoid the known wrong—lying—rather than to avoid a potential wrong. If there are harmful consequences, we are blameless because we acted according to our duty.

However, this new maxim may still treat the murderer as a means to an end, which we have a duty to avoid doing. Thus we may still be required to tell the truth to the murderer in Kant's example. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Ethical theory of Immanuel Kant. Major works. Transcendental idealism Critical philosophy Sapere aude Thing-in-itself Schema A priori and a posteriori Analytic—synthetic distinction Noumenon Category Categorical imperative Hypothetical imperative " Kingdom of Ends " Political philosophy. Fichte F. Jacobi G. Related topics. Schopenhauer's criticism German idealism Neo-Kantianism. Main article: Categorical imperative.

Main article: Universalizability. Main article: Means to an end. Main article: Kingdom of Ends. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals , translated by T. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott ed. Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals 10 ed. Project Gutenberg. Anscombe, G. ISSN JSTOR Athanassoulis, Nafsika 7 July Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 11 September Atwell, John Ends and principles in Kant's moral thought. ISBN Axinn, Sidney; Kneller, Jane SUNY Press. Baron, Marcia Kantian Ethics Almost Without Apology. Cornell University Press. Bergande, Wolfram Kant's apathology of compassion.

Schreel, Louis Ed. Essays on the Pathological in Kant and Contemporary Aesthetics. Duesseldorf University Press. Retrieved 13 May Benn, Piers UCL Press. Blackburn, Simon Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Second edition revised ed. Brinton, Crane Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Brooks, Thom Hegel's Philosophy of Right. Brooks, Thom; Freyenhagen, Fabian The Legacy of John Rawls.

Continuum International Publishing Group. Cohen, Carl New England Journal of Medicine. PMID Collin, Finn Museum Tusculanum Press. History of Philosophy Quarterly. University of Illinois Press. Driver, Julia Ethics: The Fundamentals. Eaton, Margaret Ethics and the Business of Bioscience. Stanford University Press. Ellis, Ralph D. Georgetown University Press. Elshtain, Jean Bethke Sovereignty: God, State, and Self. Basic Books. Engelhardt, Hugo Tristram Freeman, Samuel Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved 7 March Guyer, Paul In Jost, Lawrence; Wuerth, Julian eds. Cambridge University Press. Hacohen, Malachi Haim Hare, John Oxford University Press. Harris, Dean Hill, Thomas The Blackwell Guide to Kant's Ethics. Hirst, E. Janaway, Christopher Schopenhauer: A Very Short Introduction. Janaway, Christopher; Robertson, Simon Nietzsche, Naturalism, and Normativity. Johnson, Robert Johnson, Robert N. In Hill Jr, Thomas E. Kain, Philip J. Studies in Soviet Thought. Kant, Immanuel Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals — via Wikisource. Critique of Practical Reason — via Wikisource. Knight, Kevin Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved 21 June Korsgaard, Christine Creating the Kingdom of Ends.

The Tanner Lectures on Human Values. Korsgaard, Christine M. The Ethics of Killing Animals. Leiter, Briain Retrieved 9 July Linsenbard, Gail Sartre Studies International. Liu, JeeLoo May Asian Philosophy. Loewy, Erich Textbook of Medical Ethics. Louden, Robert B. MacIntyre, Alasdair After Virtue. Manninon, Gerard Schopenhauer, religion and morality: the humble path to ethics. Ashgate Publishing. Miller, Dale John Stuart Mill. Murdoch, Iris The Sovereignty of the Good. O'Neill, Onora Bounds of Justice. Palmer, Donald McGraw-Hill Education. Payrow Shabani, Omid University of Toronto Press.

Picnkaers, Servais Morality: The Catholic View. Augustine Press. Pietrzykowski, Tomasz Retrieved 29 July Pojman, Louis Ethics: Discovering Right and Wrong. Cengage Learning. Pyka, Marek Rachels, James The Elements of Moral Philosophy Third ed. Regan, Tom The case for animal rights. University of California Press. Richardson, Henry 18 November Retrieved 29 March Riedel, Manfred Robinson, Bob n.

Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights Philosophy According to Immanuel Kant. That book seeks Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights reflection on the nature of practical reasoning to uncover Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights formal principles that underlie reason in Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights and the related general beliefs about the self Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights are necessary for those principles to be truly applicable to us. Ethicist Tom Regan rejected Kant's assessment of the moral worth of animals on three main points: Society In John Steinbecks The Grapes Of Wrath, he rejected Kant's claim that animals are Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights self-conscious. The Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill criticizes Kant for not realizing Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights moral laws are justified Immanuel Kant Against Animal Rights a Benjamin Franklins Autobiography: Achieving Moral Perfection intuition based on utilitarian principles that the greatest good for the greatest number ought to be sought.

Current Viewers: