Immanuel Kant On Animal Rights

Improved Essays
“All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” states Peter Singer, as he speaks for animal liberation. Surely that makes sense? The debate is on whether or not animals are of the same or of a lesser moral importance than humans, wearying many people who have been bombarded with all the viewpoints. Yet, the situation is, for me very simple: if we are foolish enough to believe that any animals other than humans are not as important or superior, we can be deemed as morally corrupt in thinking so.

One of the reasons why animal rights must be advocated for is the sheer fact that animals are sentient beings. “Sentient” by definition is “the property of being conscious: being
…show more content…
It is a known fact that although both animals and humans are sentient beings, they are also very different from each other - some may argue, such as German philosopher Immanuel Kant, that the very aspect that differentiates animals from humans is their lack of capacity to allow them from the ability to reason. However, Immanuel Kant, aside, it is also agreed that men are different from women and children from adults. The argument being presented here is that equality does not require beings to be identical. It is true that whilst many people argue women should have the right to abortion, no one argues the same for men because men are incapable of having an abortion in the first place. It is similarly true that whilst most people believe humans have a right to vote, no one argues that animals deserve a right to vote – even those who support and advocate for animal rights. Equality does not mean that all beings all deserve the same treatment. It means that we consider equally the equal interests and desires of both humans and animals. Equality is a prescriptive rather than a descriptive concept. What is important is that beings should ONLY be treated differently where there is a morally relevant difference between them. For example, we can only justifiably deny dogs the right to vote because there is a relative difference in intelligence between dogs and humans – possibly the capacity to reason found within humans and …show more content…
They are important in keeping the world in order – food chains are the underlying force of much of Planet Earths resources. Humans are no more superior than animals, for we are all sentient beings, all living together as

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    However, it is evident from the justification given on various situations to claim higher moral status of human on some description of rationality as the morally relevant difference between humans and animals will fail. In the absence of desired answer to the argument on marginal cases, it will not be able to prove that such difference is morally relevant to the status of animals as moral patients as against of moral…

    • 1125 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    I believe granting animals equal rights would be disastrous to the environment, and negate the greatest good for all. Humans have a responsibility to our environment from both a responsibility to all things that live in it, as well as from a self-preservation standpoint. Decisions regarding moral responsibility reign beyond the rights of each individual unit in the ecosystem, with consideration to the greatest good for all. However, totally acknowledgement of Calicott’s premise is difficult as a unit within the ecosystem.…

    • 675 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Payton White Professor Hunsaker 3 September 2016 Articles 26 & 27 After analyzing article 26, “Puppies, Pigs, and People: Eating Meat and Marginal Cases” by Alastair Norcross, a couple things become apparent. Such as (only use “such as” if you are continuing the sentence, but not to start a new sentence.) our author opening up his piece with a fictional scenario that seems a tad bit crazy, but serves as a very serious philosophical point. According to our ( it would be best to just say, “the” author instead of “our” author.) author, Norcross sees meat-eaters-at least those who know of the treatment of factory-farmed animals-are completely at fault for the consumption of meat.…

    • 1262 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In the article “What’s Wrong with Animal Rights”, author Abby Hearne states that the current animal rights movement is “built upon a misconceived premise that rights were created to prevent us from unnecessary suffering.” This mixed with the misunderstanding of animal happiness and what it really means. This paper is written for people who are supporters of the current animal rights movement. The author Abby Hearne’s main argument in this essay is that our definition of animal rights is fundamentally wrong.…

    • 810 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There is no doubting the fact that animals do not have rights in the conventional sense, or in any other sense for that matter. The reason is because they are not moral agents; they cannot do things out of a sense of right or wrong and cannot reason, as opposed to humans. Without reasoning, they are unable to have rights and therefore, are not responsible. Does that mean humans have the right to treat animals badly? Of course not; but that is for humans to decide, because animals cannot decide anything.…

    • 995 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In his essay, “Speciesism and the Equality of Animals,” Peter Singer argues that the standard for having a right to get equal consideration as others is the species’ “capacity for suffering and enjoyment” (205), and therefore, a species which satisfies the standard should be protected from speciesism. Speciesism is “a prejudice or attitude of bias toward the interests of members of one’s own species and against those of members of other species” (204). Singer states that many people’s voices arguing that intelligence cannot justify racism and sexism bring speciesism towards animals into…

    • 93 Words
    • 1 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The animal rights movement declares that animals have the same right to life and protection from suffering, as well as any other creature that can feel pain. Doctor of Philosophy, Tom Regan, justifies animal rights from the standpoint of logic. In his article “The Radical Egalitarian Case for Animal Rights”, the author takes a firm stance on this issue and claims that almost all human relationships with animals have the exploitative nature. At the same time, animals have the right to meet the needs and the implementation of their natural purposes. Tom Regan 's argument can be formulated as follows non-human animals have an equal right to respect and treatment for them, which means that hurting them or using as a raw material or a kind of resource…

    • 899 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    On the article “A Change of Heart about Animals”, Jeremy Rifkin argues that animals should be treated humanely because, according to science, the differences between animals and humans are less than what we think. He believes that animals should be given the rights that protect them from inhumane treatment and human consumption. He is telling us that we have to give them the same rights that a human possesses. In affirmation to Jeremy Rifkin, we should treat animals humanely because they also have a heart that can feel pain and a brain that can think.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As we have seen, animals have more in common with humans than previously thought. They are able to use higher-level functions such as memory that were previously believed that only people could use. However, some would argue that only some animal species have this, and that there should be a ranking system of what animals should receive moral standing. Karen Davis mentioned in her article, The Provocative Elitism of “Personhood” for Nonhuman Creatures in Animal Advocacy Parlance and Polemics, “ranking animals according to a cognitive scale of intelligence is an aspect of cross-species comparisons that should be avoided” (Davis).…

    • 410 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In All Animals Are Equal, the philosopher Peter Singer argues that we should extend the basic principle of equality to non-human animals. In order to justify this claim, the author examines the foundations of the basic principle of equality, establishing a moral system that takes into account the equal consideration of interests of living beings. Peter Singer states that in order for a being to have interests at all, one must take into account the capacity of suffering and enjoyment, or in other words, sentience. Throughout this chapter, Singer makes his readers see that if one rejects racism and sexism, one must also reject the idea of giving special consideration to the interests of one species over another one. In this essay, I will firstly reconstruct the arguments used by Singer to arrive at the conclusion that all animals are equal.…

    • 905 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Animal’s Capabilities In Bonnie Steinbock’s “Speciesism and the Idea of Equality” she provides arguments against those of Peter Singers in his article “All Animals are Equal.” Steinbock argues that non-human animals should have specifics rights. She didn’t go as far as saying that they should have the right to vote or marry, but the right to be recognized as coherent beings just as capable of suffering and feeling as we are. The way that I see it, Steinbock provides some valid points but fails to acknowledge the quantity of animals in our world, and that there are some animals that we don’t care if they suffer.…

    • 830 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Name: Georges Maljian Topic: Animal Rights General Purpose: To persuade Specific Purpose: By the end of my speech, the audience should acquire a better understanding of why animals should have rights and treat them the same way they treat one another. Thesis: Sharing most of the same feelings and emotions we do, animals are not ours to use for entertainment, eat, experiment on, wear, or abuse in any other way. Introduction:…

    • 1327 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Introduction Animal rights is the idea in which all animals have the right to their life and their most basic interest, like avoiding pain and suffering. Animal rights movements started in the west, the first public victory for animal rights activist was the Britain's Treatment of Cattle Act or The Martin’s Act, which prevents improper treatment towards…

    • 1328 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Ahmed Ibtida Class 841 Aren’t animals like humans? They carry out all the steps of a living organism, and they feel the pain that surrounds them. So, shouldn’t they be given the chance to govern by themselves, without the distraction from humans? A better question to consider is that are we humans really all that different if we are also considered animals in the scientific world. It doesn’t come to our mind that in the animal world, there are no classes or beings inferior or superior to one another.…

    • 968 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Animal Rights Should animals have rights? If so, should these rights be comparable to those given to humans? Animal Rights are rights believed to be owed to animals in order for them to live full lives, free from suffering. Animals are currently being used, and in some cases abused, in medical research, clothing industries, hunting for sport, food, and population control, and countless other services to humans. As is the case with all ethical issues, there are two defined perspectives and supporters of the current and future treatment given and due to animals.…

    • 1264 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays