Comparing Kant And Descartes Arguments Against Animal Rights

Hypothetically speaking, if either or both Kant and Descartes were alive in the present day, I believe both would argue against the majority of animal right laws. While they both were alive, they each made cases against animal rights, proclaiming humans possessed a dominant role over the animals of the earth. Both philosophers make very logical arguments within this theory, for example, Kant utilizes the use of food and clothing which animals provide human beings as a primary source of survival. Descartes took his opposition of animal rights to an entirely different level, when he attempted to dissect a living dog, in order to prove animals did not have feelings. Obviously his experiment didn’t work out to well for him to prove his case, however the fact remains that he made powerful arguments against animal rights.
In defense of both Kant and Descartes I would conclude that if all life is linked (as I believe it is), it is mankind’s inherited obligation to responsibly utilize the resources nature has provided us to survive. Both of their underlying positions ultimately passes the common sense test, taking all life into consideration each organism residing on earth …show more content…
After all it is socially acceptable to cut down forests to provide lumber, drill into the earth to provide fuel, contaminate water sources with human waste, yet nobody argues when it comes to the personal comforts that nature provides. Why then, would the same theory not be applied to animals and their rights? Don’t people enjoy eating meat, wearing leather, taking medicine that was tested on animals? I sure don’t hear anyone defending animal right positions once the hypocrisy of their case is made evident. Society has adopted a dangerous attachment to comfort, people can debate or protest as much as they like, however, if their comforts were stripped anyway and they had to choose between animal rights or self-preservation I think the outcome would be