Analysis Of Duties Toward Animals, By Immanuel Kant

In Immanuel Kant’s “Duties toward Animals, Spirits, and inanimate objects” he makes his stance on animal rights very clear. He believes that we have no direct duties to animals, yet we have indirect duties towards them in order to benefit mankind. Though many philosophers agreed with his way of thinking, many modern day philosophers and scientists are able to find flaws in Kant’s arguments. Kants belief that “we have no duties to animals, plants, material objects, or the environment as a whole” was justified through the idea that humans are rational but animals, plants, etc. are not. This idea was supported by Aquinas, an Italian religious leader and philosopher, who once stated “According to the Divine ordinance the life of animals and plants is preserved not for themselves but for man.” This is to say that animals are only used at our disposal because they do not think in the same ways humans do. The founder of modern utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham, thought differently than Aquinas and Kant and believed in the direct rights of animals. He rebutted those who thought like Kant by stating “The question is not, Can they reason? nor Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?” This question put into perspective the idea that although animals do not live life the same way we do, both humans and animals are all able to suffer the same way, so who are humans to abuse and kill beings …show more content…
After he states that experimenting is morally acceptable, he says “any such cruelty for sport cannot be justified.” This distinguishes Kant from other philosophers, like Rene Descartes, who believed that animals are automata and cannot feel pain. By saying that killing animals for sport is immoral, he is recognizing that animals, like humans, can feel pain and it is only acceptable to put them through suffering in order to better the world for