Kant's Decision To Ban Animal Testing
The final aspect of Kant’s theory is the respect for persons; people should not be treated as a tool to your own desires but treated with dignity.
Kant’s view on animals was sure and unwavering. Rachels (2010) quotes his lectures on ethics “But so far as animals are concern, we have no direct duties. Animals… are there merely as a means to an end. That end is man.” (pp. 136) Using Kant’s Categorical imperative we must observe if the ban of animal testing can be universalised. The outlawing of cosmetics testing by Kant’s standards would mean the ban of medical testing on animals as well. This would be a massive setback for medical research, and potentially mean that the discovery of certain breakthroughs would not be possible. I believe that this is something that cannot be universalized. If we analyse another aspect of Kant’s theory being the importance of motive, we will see that the motive for research on animals is indeed a good motive. To make sure the final product is usable by the consumer and does not cause medical harm. Animals are only valued as long as they serve human purposes. In relation to Isaac Davidson’s article in the New Zealand Herald, Kant would strongly disagree with Animal activist and Green party MP Mojo Mathers. Davidson. I (2015) "It 's fantastic that we will now be able to hold our head up high as a country and say that we too have banned this cruel and outdated practice." Retrieved April 3rd. If we are to go by Kant’s description for the treatment of animals, if it benefits humanity how they are treated is irrelevant because the end result must always be