Response to Kant and Singer - Essay Example

Response to Kant and Singer In their respective articles, Peter Singer and Immanuel Kant address specific issues thatexplain the behavior of humans especially the relationship that exists between humans and other non-human animals. Peter Singer looks into the contentious issues of animal liberation while Immanuel Kant adopts a passive approach as he strives to explain moral worth in validating numerous behaviors and actions (Singer 77). Despite their different approaches, both philosophers contend that humans must always protect animals by limiting conflicts. Humans have the moral obligation to care for their ecosystems. Unlike other non-human animals that readily adopt to their surroundings, humans often change their surrounding in order to make it more comfortable. As such, humans have sophisticated social and intellectual setup and therefore steers the relationship with other animals. The two scholars thus explain that humans must appreciate the role and position of the other animals thus developing a natural ecosystem for the other animals to prosper on their own. Kent explains the need for the liberation of animals as a fundamental social feature that he likens to the many other liberal movements throughout the history of humans. By likening the need for animal liberation to the liberation of blacks in the United States, the renowned philosopher strives to develop a mental image of the issue and its importance. Animal rights are specific entitlements that humans accord animals in order to foster their lives and place in the society. The scholar explains that the current society experiences intense animal-human conflicts most of which result in the loss of ether human or animal lives (Kant 54). He explains that the case should not remain this way since the ecosystem can accommodate both the animals and the humans. He therefore calls for responsive relationship between animals and humans thus ensuring that each group enjoys its life to the fullest. Peter Singer shares the ideas of Immanuel Kant who calls for the liberation of animals. Kant believes that treating animals humanely enhances the human-animal interactions thus minimizing the risks associated with such relationships. This implies Singer would appreciate and call for the implementation of Kant’s hypothesis. In the article, Kant argues that only those who exhibit rationality have moral worth. Rationality refers to a degree of levelheadedness that enables an individual to weigh his actions thus make appropriate decisions, those that do not show disregard to the social values. Killing a human is an inappropriate and immoral action that is both a sin and a crime in every society. The ability for every human to acknowledge this is an example of uniform application of morality among humans. Just as people consider their actions as they interact among themselves in order not to kill or maim the other is a portrayal of rational beings. As such, humans appear as people with moral worth at least according to Kant in his article. Kant therefore explains that numerous other human actions require effective consideration of the possible ramifications in order to limit harm in the society. In explaining the need to care for the animals, Singer asserts that it requires the expansion of morality among humans. He explains that in the liberation of blacks in the United States for example, humans extend their morality. The mistreatments and discrimination of the African Americans typified abject disregard to human values and rights. This way, he explains the gravity of plight of animals that face intense mistreatment by humans. Morality is an objective philosophical concept that refers to the choice between right and wrong. The lack of a definition of both terms implies that different people define the two differently. Singer therefore explains that in order to develop a conducive planet that accommodates both animals and humans peacefully, the society should have a similar definition of the two terms thus determining appropriate ways of handling humans. Using such domestic animals as horses and donkeys to pull ploughs among other hard labors are avid examples of maltreatment of animals. Poaching on the other hand portrays the extent of both cruelty and greed as humans kill and maim wild animals in order to gain financial gains. The fact that some people view laboring domestic animals and poaching among other social evils as appropriate thus underscores the need for humans to extend their morality in order to develop a uniform manner of evaluating and handling both domestic and wild animals. In his article, Rational beings alone have moral worth, Immanuel Kant analyses different mindsets that influence the behavior and actions of different people. The philosopher admits that morality is a relative social concept that means different things to different people. As such, he therefore develops an appropriate way of analyzing the nature of morality in a society. The two articles are vital in addressing the contentious issue of animal rights. Animals are fundamental features of the ecosystem that must survive alongside humans. Animals deserve peace and stability in order to enjoy their lives thus plays their role in sustaining the ecosystem. Humans often lead the relationship between humans and animals. Such relationships therefore require mutual respect in order to limit the harm that often results from such interactions. Among the activities that portray cruelty against animals include the wide spread poaching in different parts of the world, deforestation that continues to destroy the habitats, use of animals in entertainment and cruelty against wild domestic animals among many others. such irrational interactions often heighten the conflict between humans and animals thus resulting in the death of either animals or humans. Numerous theories explain the need for safeguarding animal rights, key among such is Prima facie rights theory. The theory asserts that the mere fact that animals are living creature accords them the right to life. Humans must therefore appreciate and preserve the life of animals as they do the life of humans. The theory underscores the integral fact in Kant’s article, which is the need for rational behaviors. Rationality upholds the value of life. Rational beings will always try to minimize the harm they cause to others. This requires people to consider their actions with the view of ensuring that every action cause minimal harm to other parties. Kant requires humans to extend the rational thought and the need to consider the consequences of human actions to the interactions between humans and other animals. This way, humans will preserve the lives of the animals owing to their rational thought thus exhibit their moral worth. Cruelty to animals through utter disregard to the rights of the animals often cause harm to people thereby portraying irrational acts. Those who relate aggressively with the animals do so with the view of enhancing financial gains without considering the plight of other humans, a feature that embodies irrationality. Animals and forests have a value to everyone. Opting to poach elephants and rhino for an individual’s gain is a portrayal of utter disregard to the values of the rest of the people and is selfish. Kant explains that the lack to consider the feelings and thoughts of others is irrational and such individuals do not have any moral worth in the society. The interaction between humans and animals is important. Conserving the animals and treating them with respect is vital in the sustenance of the ecosystem. Humans must therefore exhibit rational behavior and moral worth thus appreciating the value of the animals. This way, it becomes possible for the animals to enjoy numerous rights alongside humans. In retrospect, animals are entitled to specific rights that humans must uphold. Animas are often vulnerable since they lack an effective mechanism to use in defending their rights especially against aggressive humans. As such, it becomes the responsibility of humans to uphold the values of the animals. This contributes to the development of an ideal ecosystem in which every living creature enjoys liberty. Works cited Kant, Immanuel. Rational beings alone have moral worth. Animal rights. Greenwood: OUP, 2009. Print. Singer, Peter. A utilitarian defense of animal liberation. Animal rights. Greenwood: OUP, 2009. Print. Read More