Immanuel Kant's Argument Against Animal Rights

The controversy over animal rights is one of the most argumentative in ethics and morality. Many people believe animals do not have rights, and that the people who support animal rights are liberals who need to find other outlets for their beliefs. Others feel it is our moral obligation to nurture animals as they cannot speak or act for themselves. Immanuel Kant’s view does not claim that it is permissible to cause pointless animal suffering, but he does insist that we have no obligations to the animals themselves. I will argue that humans do have obligations to the animals themselves.
Kant believed that autonomy was extremely valuable, but in order to have it one must have free will, which requires having self-consciousness and the capacity to be guided by reason. But animals, according to Kant, are not autonomous. Therefore, the Categorical Imperative does not apply to them. Animals may lack “decision-making capacity” in the robust human sense that they can’t explicitly tell us “I …show more content…
“If he is not to stifle his own feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals”. Thus, it is in the self-interest of humanity to treat animals humanely. Kant’s view was that we should avoid pointless cruelty to animals, and since animals are here only to serve man, causing animal suffering is justified whenever it suits our interests. 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