Comparing Kant And Descartes Arguments Against Animal Rights

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Leaver Culture Analysis

    • 1493 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Our conscience and intellect separates us from other animals, but we are still animals and connected to nature. If we disrupt the natural laws, then we see ourselves as more than the rest of the planet. We put our own worth on a pedestal, and undermine the consequences that we have with our tunnel vision views. Singer and Regan do not acknowledge that humans are animals, and we can also cause our extinction. While the rights view tells us how to treat animals with their own worth and to leave wild animals alone, it also fails to acknowledge how if we were truly equal we would help a dying breed.…

    • 1493 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    He agrees that we really need to increase the experiment amount to avoid putting human lives in danger because the increase in life expectancy , decrease in pain or deaths, the quality of human life all depends on such those research or experiments. Although Cohen does acknowledge the existence of speciesism, however he does not agree that it is similar to racism or sexism as Singer puts it. He argues that Singer’s arguments are invalid because there is no moral difference between races or sexes. Nonetheless, he believes that there is a moral difference between humans and animals that doesn’t grant rights to animals but it does allow humans to use animals for their…

    • 1379 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Conversely, animals do have the right to live without cruelty and abuse, and it is our obligation to make sure these things do not occur. We have domesticated many animals for our own pleasure, like dogs, cats, and snakes and we have a moral duty to care for these animals, and to take them away from homes where they do not acquire this good care. It is completely unfair to justify torturing a cow just because you want a nice steak for…

    • 835 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    On Eating Animals Analysis

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages

    While considering the ethical aspects of eating meat, I personally find myself imagining the human as part of a natural circle of life where animals kill and eat each other to survive. Genuine disgust at the cruelty has been evident in the response of donations to animal welfare groups. So it's not to say that farm animals get no sympathy in the United States, but only that Americans somehow don't recognize that cruelty is the norm, not the exception, and is incorporated into the very idea of factory farms; what makes meat cheap is the assembly line processing. Treating animals humanely begins with natural diets, open spaces for living, eliminating the use of hormones that manipulate body weight and mutilations, together with more in depth training for caretakers and inspectors, maybe surveillance cameras, and professionals who enforce laws and prosecute violators, and so on all of which would make meat more expensive. Nothing strikes me as more absurd than calling oneself an animal lover while consuming industrialized meat, though people will surely continue to lie to themselves and even offer various excuses to defend their habit.…

    • 1273 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    One of those people is Philosopher Carl Cohen, who believes that animals have no rights. “A right is a claim that one party may exercise against another” said Cohen. His argument is that since animals can 't comprehend what a right is or who holds it they have none, so obligation and rights have to be differentiated. What he means is that when you have a pet you are obligated to feed it and take it to the vet, but they still have no rights. In the reading he mentions that we kill animals for food, clothing, and shelter but when it comes to testing in animals we think it isn 't right.…

    • 1036 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In fact, it is proven that meat is not a vital step for keeping good health (Singer para. 18). There are plenty of food options as an alternative to eating meat, yet humans continue to eat these animals for pleasure. Meat is not necessary for survival in modern life like it used to be for ancestors, so continuing to eat meat simply for pure enjoyment of the taste shows that humans often act selfishly. In addition, it is considered a social norm to eat animals, but extremely wrong to eat another human.…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The title of McPhersons work is ‘Why I am a Vegan’ which relates the majority of the work to why killing animals and using their products is wrong. That being said, I would assume almost anyone would find it troubling if someone thought it was ok to kill other humans; this is because humans have rights that animals do not. We have a duty to animals to treat them justly and humanly but they don’t have rights equivalent to ours. McPherson relates his examples to humans so we would be able to relate to the examples and be able to have perspective, however it doesn’t work in this argument. McPherson states that “killing typically interferes dramatically with the victim’s autonomy” yes this is true for humans and it is also true for animals (McPherson 5).…

    • 1716 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Therefore, killing animals in a humane way for consuming them is justified. Moreover, if it is claimed that vegetarianism is ethical because it saves lives, it ignores the fact that plants are also living beings (Pantagraph, 1991). According to Cleve Backster (1968), a man completely not knowing of plant and animal science has not just tested plants for discernment and feeling, he asserts that he has experimental evidence that plants encounter an extensive variety of feelings and considerations. He additionally asserts that plants can read human personalities and he tested his plants on a polygraph machine and found that plants respond to considerations and dangers. We the human beings, animals and plants are part of the food chain.…

    • 1058 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I think moral treatments of any living thing should just be left to what the people and our brains think is morally right or wrong. It is often argued that we treat animals morally wrong by testing chemicals on them to make sure it’s safe for human use. In order for our species to thrive and expand our knowledge we would need to test certain chemicals on animals because they are disposable. Sure humans are also disposable both since we are barely reaching the pinnacle of basic human right, I doubt people want to be volunteering other people to have experiment done on…

    • 739 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Violated interests explain that even the most humane forms of preparing and killing animals for food nearly almost violates the animals most basic interest which is to predominantly keep living. Modern agriculture often violates other key animal rights/ interests as well; to live in natural or decent conditions, to make free choices, to be free from fear again, to live healthy lives without needing medical interventions, to eat a natural diet and to enjoy the normal/social/family/community life of its spaces . The argument for human interest vs animals interests can be made invalid as humans don’t need to eat meat in order to survive whereas if you kill animals for meat you are permanently killing them. Animals are essentially like us so do deserve to have their interests heard. Human interest in this case is classed as trivial because human beings don’t need to eat meat in order to…

    • 891 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays