Immanuel Kant's Duties Towards Animals And Spirits

In Kantian Ethics, an action is good and moral if done in the maxim (motivating principle) that would be universally accepted and done in the sake of duty alone. While this principle primarily addresses human-human interactions, our duties in human-animal relationships remain unclear. So in considering the question of our duties to animals in his “Duties Towards Animals and Spirits,” Immanuel Kant asserts that the moral obligations we have as human beings to animals are, in fact, obligations to ourselves. We ought to act with animals as we would with another fellow human, Kant says, not because animals are conscious of the duties we have toward them, for they are not, but because we are beings conscious of our own duties. It can be confusing …show more content…
We can better understand our duties to animals by exploring the relationship of a dutiful gardner with his plants—which has been for long and remains a one-sided affair. One can say with much certainty that a gardener knows he will not receive in return the same care and attention he gives to his plants. The roses will not feed him water when he is thirsty. His plants will not rush to the store for medicine as he did when they were in need. This, he is well aware of. Regardless, the good gardener doesn’t hesitate to care for his plants. When the soil is dry and the sun is hot, he waters the plants, dutifully. His actions are similar in the case of plant infections—he, one way or another, cares for his plants. The gardener performs his duties free of expectations, for the sake of duty and duty alone. Skeptics or anti-gardeners (if such a thing exists) can, nonetheless, argue the motives of the gardener. They can say that he takes care of his plants because a cared-for garden is pleasing to look at, or perhaps because a blooming garden complements the bare colorwork of his house. In other words, his duties are a means to an end. However, such motives do not trouble the morality of a gardener. In fact, they are a case similar to the earlier example of the master and his dog. And we know from that example that if the plants are at service to him, and more importantly, at …show more content…
Hinduism has a theory of reincarnation that centers around duty, or Dharma: we have to perform our duties correctly to reach “moksha,” or the release from the cycle of rebirth. The difference, however, between Kantian duties and Dharma is that, while Kant says we all have duties toward mankind, Hinduism has established different sets of duties for each of the caste in the caste system; while the goal of Dharma is to emancipate yourself from reincarnation, Kantian duties are geared only toward living a morally satisfying life; while Dharma is a means to an end, Kant suggests we act dutifully for the sake of duty itself. And these differences, in my belief, make Kantian Ethics—dare I say—superior to the moral philosophy of Hinduism. Kant asks of us, regardless of our position in society, to act dutifully—not to reach a means-end but for the sake of duty and duty