One objection to Kantian deontology is that it does not propose a solution where two absolute duties conflict with each other. As previously stated, according to Kant, duties are absolute moral rules and the objective morality grounds on this feature of duties. However, this absolutism leads to possible conflict of duties and Kantian deontology does not provide a form for this kind of situations. For instance, I borrow a pocket knife from my friend and I promise to give it back when she wants back. Next day, when we are together in our neighbor, a guy swears to my friend and she gets really angry. She wants the pocket knife to hurt him and I know that she can really do it. I should keep my promise and give the pocket knife but also I should not help her to hurt somebody. These are different duties but I have to obey the command of each duty. Since they are unconditional and absolute, they cannot both be followed. It is possible to give many similar real life examples where duties are in conflict. How can we decide one duty is more important than another? It is not possible to give a consequentialist account of duty for the Kantian deontology. Therefore, Kantian ethics can be impractical in special kind of scenarios. One …show more content…
Kant himself claims that it is not right to hurt animals. The reason behind this claim is that he believes that hurting animals indirectly infringing the moral duties to rational beings. For example, raping a cat damages the person who performs that action and it affects his or her attitudes toward rational beings. “... so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. ... Our duties towards animals are merely indirect duties towards humanity." However, in my opinion, this respond cannot be a proper respond to the objection because it still does not give a sufficient importance to non-rational