Philosophy - Kant Treatment of animals, Utilitarianism Vegetarianism - Essay Example

Philosophy: Kant Treatment of animals, Utilitarianism Vegetarianism It is a reality beyond suspicion that philosophers are the rebels of the societyto which belong, and revolt against the prevailing inequalities, injustices and malpractices being committed within their social and political establishment. Their thoughtfulness shows new dimensions and ray of hope to their fellow beings, though they are censured, rebuked and discouraged from exercising their noble ideas and sophisticated philosophies in order to eradicate the cruelties and atrocities being inflicted by the powerful stratum upon the weak social groups and communities at large. Their kindness and mercies are not confined to one specific group of individuals; nor did they raise voice against the injustices being observed on human beings. On the contrary, the vastness of their kindness spreads over all and sundry like the golden rays of the sun shines even the darkest and dirtiest corner of the earth. It is therefore the ancient Greek, Roman, Christian, Islamic, Chinese and modern western philosophers always preached virtue, compassion and sacrifice by concentrating upon ethics and moral values, where no one could be harmed or humiliated at the hands of others. The same can be witnessed by going through the philosophies presented by the illustrious 18th century German thinker and philosopher Immanuel Kant and 19th century British philosopher J.S. Mills. The notions presented by the philosophers are based on the welfare of common man, and do not contradict the moral values observed by ordinary people. But the basic difference between a philosopher and common people is this that common people can look at only their personal problems, while a philosopher maintains universality in his vision and opinion, which encompasses the needs and requirements of the individuals belonging to divergent racial, ethnic, religious, social and political groups without discrimination. The opposition of the philosophers is actually the outcome of narrow-sightedness of the people having limited canvas and confined vision, which results in refuting the ideas of great philosophers without having in-depth analyses of their theories. For instance, Immanuel Kant is opposed and condemned on the basis of his notion that only humans serves as the object of honor. (Broadie & Pybus, 1974) The critics argue that Kant does not present anything in favor of displaying kindness towards animals, nor does he condemns exercising butcheries on the creature that is unable to speak or deliver a single word even. Kant does not give animals the status equal to man, but is of the view that since the animals are unable to describe their pains and sufferings, they should be treated with kindness in the same manner as it is displayed towards person. Hence, if Kantian philosophy is considered in its true prospect, it becomes crystal clear that the renowned philosopher lays stress upon the same moral values adopted by an overwhelming majority of the individuals belonging to various cultures and societies of the world. Moral values maintain direct relationship with religious beliefs, social norms and cultural values. All existing religions and culture preach kindness towards animals, and the same is emphasized upon by the philosophers. Neither religion, nor society allows harsh treatment of animals, but the life of the animals cannot be stated as honorable, precious and prestigious and that of the persons (i.e. humans) In his work under the title the Metaphysic of Morals, Kant declares that man is bound to pay his duties and obligations to himself and his fellow beings i.e. persons (Broadie & Pybus, 1974), and nature of duties towards animals is surely different from those which are towards human beings. It is partially due to the fact that only man is rational being, and can comprehend the nature, kind and intensity of duties towards others, and consequently enter into reciprocal relationship of rights and obligations, which the animals are unable to do. It is therefore Broadie & Pybus lament on Paton’s negligence regarding interpreting and communicating the Kantian notion regarding the prudence and rationality of humans from which the animals are deprived of. (Broadie & Pybus, 1974) Moral values has direct link with religious beliefs and practices of the individuals on the one hand and cultural values and social norms on the other. The social norms and morality are the identification of the individuals of a nation. Moral beliefs are said to be grounded in cultural contexts. Culture, is a dynamic process subject to change in response to internal contradictions and critical social thought. It is the heritage of spiritual, moral, religious, social, political, economic and cultural values that transfers from one human generation to the other, but the same cannot be observed by the animals at all. Though Kant never allows exercising any type of butchery on the animals, and suggests rewarding them on displaying faithfulness towards humans, yet he does not proposes same nature of reward as is attributed to humans, which are rational and prudent beings. Hence, man’s duties towards humans are quite different from his obligations towards animals in nature and scope. It is therefore, Kant does not condemn the slaughter of animals in the same lines as provoked by the utilitarian theorists on the one hand, and the vegetarians on the other. John Stuart Mill is regarded as one of the most influential philosophers that belongs to all ages and countries of the globe. His political philosophy concentrates upon the famous notion of utilitarianism, where he views that the first code of morality rests on the belief of making distinction between right and wrong. Since he believes that every man should provide maximum pleasure to the other, he looks for showing extreme mercy to animals too. Consequently, the followers of his theory associate him with vegetarians, who condemn the slaughter of animals too at the hands of humans. Singer (1980) is of the view that moral theory is mistakenly considered as the following of some specific age-old moral values, which is not the aim of utilitarianism. On the contrary, utilitarianism looks for making distinction between right and wrong. Killing and slaughtering of animals, according to singer, is against the ideology of both utilitarianism and vegetarianism. Utilitarianism supports maximizing of happiness and minimizing of pain, which could be observed while slaughtering and eating the animals. Utilitarianism does not prevent the individuals from eating the meat of animals. Utilitarianism offers maximum rights of liberty and freedom to the animals, and is strictly against encaging and ensnaring them for the pleasures of humans. Almost al the philosophers including Aristotle, Kant, Aquinas and others lay stress upon treating them kindly, but neither of the philosophers forbid animal eating altogether. (Singer, 1980) Kant claims kindness to animals as the part of moral ethics, though he never views that humans are bound to pay their duties towards the animals in the same way as they pay towards the fellow humans. On the contrary, vegetarianism aims to discourage the farming of animals for eating purpose and looks for projecting and promoting the concept of consuming vegetables in the maximum as diet. Singer refutes Regan’s ideas where he claims that both utilitarianism and vegetarianism are strictly against the slaughter of animals, because killing of animals for trivial matter of taste is against the rules of morality and mercifulness. Singer favors the argument that showing kindness and mercy is another thing, and slaughtering them is completely another. It is therefore, no rational philosopher condemned animal eating, but always encouraged in treating them in a tender and kind way. The same are the principles of utilitarianism and vegetarianism, and see eye to eye with the notions presented by both Kant and Mills in their works. Works Cited: Broadie, Alexander and Pybus, Elizabeth M. Kants Treatment of Animals Royal Institute of Philosophy Vol. 49, No. 190 (Oct., 1974), Oxford University Press pp. 375-383 Singer, Peter Utilitarianism and Vegetarianism Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 9, No. 4 Blackwell Publishing (Summer, 1980), pp. 325-337 . Read More