Analysis Of Immanuel Kant's Duties Towards Animals

In his work titled, “Duties Towards Animals,” Immanuel Kant claims that, “our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity” (Kant 564). He defends this position by defining animals not to be self conscious, as Kant only counts beings that are rational and autonomous in his principle of humanity. This principle states that all humans should always be treated as an end, and never merely as a means to achieve your own personal goals. Consequently, it prevents all unconscious beings, including animals, from possessing any rights. Kant goes onto point out that we have an obligation to have positive interactions with animals so that humans can practice their gracious behavior, and ultimately apply it to human interactions. This is asserted in contending that, “people who are kind to …show more content…
Likewise, Kant suggest that rational humans will feel a sense of guilt when killing an animal without having a reason. Yet, should humans not feel a sense of responsibility when taking the life of a living creature with an alleged reason? When only considering human interest, it leads to the neglect and inconsideration for animals who are more distanced from the direct sphere of influence of humans. For example, domesticated animals and profitable livestock are more likely to receive better treatment than species that live in remote geographical locations or play seemingly insignificant roles in the lives of humans. When Kant says that animals are here only to serve men, we must remember that animals have existed well before the evolution of man. While Kant stresses the idea that animals are not rational beings, and thus humans owe no direct duty to them, it is important to point out that some species, such as primates, have been proven to hold at least the same cognitive capabilities as some humans. Contrastingly, there