Kant asks his readers to live through the terms of direct and indirect duties. A direct duty is an obligation from being to another based on what that being is. An indirect duty is an obligation to something as a result of a direct duty. A real life example that portrays this system would go as follows: a man has a direct duty to another human, Sally, but because she is a self-conscious human. This same man, Erik, does not have a direct duty to sally’s cat, Bons. Erik’s duties to this cat are only considered because it is a direct duty to sally. So, letting sally is cat die would be wrong of Erik because he would be wronging sally not because the death of the cat alone holds any moral obligation. When discussing who is given specific duties Kant is clear to state that self-conscious beings are the only one to receive, direct moral consideration. The concept of self-consciousness refers to the ability to reflect on one’s actions, as well as, plan ahead. Self-conscious humans are
…show more content…
We have direct duties toward self- beings
2. Animals are not self-conscious being
Conclusion: Therefore we do not have direct duties toward animals.
This argument is valid but the soundness can be challenged by debating the truthfulness of the premises. The easiest premise to argue over is premise 2: “Animal are not self-conscious beings.” A counter example to this claim would resonate with science which show many beings which are considered animals show self-consciousness such as many apes like chimpanzees or gorillas. A counter example which refutes the 1st premise, “We have direct duties toward self-conscious being” may describe a situation such as this: Many young infants are not self-conscious but if an orphan child was drowning in a pool it would be instinctively wrong to allow the child to die because it was not ‘self-conscious.’ This example battles Kant argument by showing that although a being is non ‘self-conscious’ we still hold a direct duty to save it or help it
We have direct duties toward self- beings
2. Animals are not self-conscious being
Conclusion: Therefore we do not have direct duties toward animals.
This argument is valid but the soundness can be challenged by debating the truthfulness of the premises. The easiest premise to argue over is premise 2: “Animal are not self-conscious beings.” A counter example to this claim would resonate with science which show many beings which are considered animals show self-consciousness such as many apes like chimpanzees or gorillas. A counter example which refutes the 1st premise, “We have direct duties toward self-conscious being” may describe a situation such as this: Many young infants are not self-conscious but if an orphan child was drowning in a pool it would be instinctively wrong to allow the child to die because it was not ‘self-conscious.’ This example battles Kant argument by showing that although a being is non ‘self-conscious’ we still hold a direct duty to save it or help it