Indirect Theories and Moral Equality Theories on Kindness to Non-Human Animals - Essay Example

Indirect Theories and Moral Equality Theories on Kindness to Non-Human Animals According to Immanuel Kant, humans have duties to be kind to animals because these “duties towards animals…are indirect duties towards mankind” ( 64 ). This means that despite them being non-human animals that “are not rational, self-conscious beings capable of grasping the moral law” ( 63 ), they still have intrinsic moral worth. According to Kant, animals are not included in the human territory because only humans are capable of creating and understanding moral laws. This also means that while a human, being an “end in itself” ( 64 ) are not indebted to animals, kindness towards animals “will help develop good character in us and help us treat our fellow human beings with greater consideration” ( 63 ). Aside from making humans less likely to be cruel to other humans, kindness to animals makes human beings fulfill the indirect duties to humanity, which is a categorical imperative. Kant provides good examples of this claim. A dog, for example, may not have rights like humans do, but letting the dog suffer is a reflection of lack of humanity. Kind treatment of the dog, especially one that has been faithful over time, in not necessarily a human being’s duty towards the animal, but a human being’s duty of “humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind” ( 64 ). Cruelty to animals, according to Kant, reflects in humans an immoral tendency that might be inflicted to fellow humans. However, despite the need to be kind to animals, they should not be treated as ends in themselves. Human beings “serve(s) the will as the objective ground for its self-determination” ( 63 ), yet this is not the same with non-human animals. Animals are a means to an end, and that end is man. This means that while man does not have the right to use other people in ways to serve another human’s end, the case is not the same with animals. Still, one must consider that kindness towards animals is an imperative that will ultimately serve the end purpose that is humanity. Human beings require respect because they are sovereign and have freedom. Such autonomy is important and a creature can only have it by having free will. Since animals do not have the capacity for reason and are not guided by consciousness, they do not really have free will, and are thus not autonomous. Kant has a strong point when he says that one can ask, “Why do animals exist?” ( 64 ). However, the question “Why does man exist?” is meaningless ( 64 ). It seems the argument is that animals exist for a specific purpose, and one of those purposes is to serve the goals of man. Kant’s arguments make strong points. However, some amendments may be done according to some principles of consideration. While animals do not have the capacity for reason, are not guided by consciousness, do not really have free will, and are not autonomous, humans should act with “consideration in satisfying (their) needs and interests” ( 76 ). Singer quotes Bentham: “The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been withholden from them but by the hand of tyranny” ( 76 ). Does this mean that consideration of one’s needs and interests apply to animals as well, and that giving animals rights is utterly necessary to reach this goal? To answer this requires not only a slight reconstruction of Kant’s views, but of Singer’s as well. What is required here is to determine if animals have morally significant needs and interests. The emphasis on moral significance means that withholding such could inflict unnecessary harm and suffering to non-human animals. Do animals have welfare or well-being that could benefit or be harmed by the non-existence of animal rights? It could be possible. However, saying this about a creature lacking logic, consciousness, and free will is tantamount to saying the same regarding a, say, car. Do animals have needs and interests that can be met or denied? Cars obviously do not have interests, and what about animals? Many people would answer “Yes” to this, but it is a fact that it is hard to prove. Furthermore, both animals and cars have needs. Does this give human enough reason to give animal rights? If so, how about car rights? It can also be argued that to have interests requires one to have desires about the future. Do animals have desires about a future? This remains unclear. Therefore, it is easier to accept that while animals are a means towards an end that is man, humans have the ability to provide utmost consideration to animals, or to any other creature for that matter. With such abilities come obligations. Therefore, it is man’s obligation to see to it that animals do not suffer even towards the attainment of man’s goals. Critics like Singer would argue Kant’s theories with the theories of moral equality. He states, “…our concern for others ought not to depend on what they are like, or what abilities they possess” ( 76 ). Singer argues that doing so is called speciesism, wherein one believes that the interests of one species are superior to that of another species. Singer states that speciesism is similar to sexism and racism --- both of which are greatly opposed nowadays. He states that the principles that drove racism and sexism are similar to that of giving priorities to one who has greater capacity for thinking ( 75 ). Singer argues that the basis for opposing inequality should not be based on the belief that everyone has equal abilities or capacities, but that everyone’s needs and interests hold equal value. Singer even quotes Sidgwick, saying: The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view (if I may say so) of the Universe, than the good of any other. ( 76 ) Singer would also argue that the act of killing animals just because they suit the goal of human dietary wants is an act of cruelty, and inflicts suffering upon the animals. Keeping these animals in “cramped, unsuitable conditions” ( 77 ) is also cruelty. The same is true on the concept of experimenting on a human being just because the person is an orphan or is afflicted with mental disabilities ( 78 ). Both Kant’s and Singer’s argument create strong points on their own. However, personally speaking, a middle ground between the two theories would be easier to accept and understand. While it is true that no suffering should be inflicted on any animate creatures, this does not have to mean that equal rights should be given to both humans and animals alike. Rights should be accorded to creatures that have the capacity for logic, and the capacity to act upon those rights accorded to them. Animals could not do that. For example, if one would give animals the right to live and the right not to be killed for food, would humans consider it a violation of another animal if a lion eats a baby zebra? Must Baygon be banned because it kills insects? Therefore, it is best if humans would just act on the obligations accorded to them by their capacities, and ensure that suffering is not inflicted upon non-human animals, even if the animals are kept to be soon eaten. Works Cited Read More