Kant On Animals

Animals. First and foremost, each of the following arguments defines animals as non-human, sentient entities. Animal rights positions, under this definition, are either not equal, sometimes equal, or always equal to humans. For this distinction, I will replay the concepts of Kant, Regan and Warren.

To begin, Kant seemingly does not at first glance argue that animals do not have values, only that their value is not morally equal to that of humans. He even goes so far as to define plants and animals as organizational being; those with purpose and the ability to be purposeful. He, like, Regan believes that animals have inherent worth. His main distinction is that animals do not have moral rights and have no self-evaluation or “I”.

Since,

He also conveys the belief that any non-mammal animal that shows itself to be subject-of-life, i.e., having consciousness also possesses these inherent rights equal to that of humans. Seemingly divergent, Warren blasts Regan’s concept of subject-of-life citing fish, spiders, and octopi as falling outside the description of the rights of mature mammals. She instead stands the position that animals with the ability to pursue pleasure should, those that can feel pain should not be unduly inflicted, and no sentient being should be killed without good reason. Despite the obvious difference, both Regan and Warren, respectively, promote the position of “sometimes equal to

I’m not comparing the concept of human cruelty to that of animals, any more than I would describe animal cruelty in America as comparable to animal cruelty in Australia. Nor am I debating, the right to harm another, if justified, as that too is based on personal morals and views and not any comparable scientific focus. I, also, do not agree that the ability to discern self-worth, nor universal usefulness, or even the ability to communicate by any modern definition, should decide the importance of life.

In conclusion, the overlapping ideas, regarding the equality of animals, and how humans should distinguish and defend the rights, or lack thereof, of animals, shows that no concrete, purely scientific answer exists. Instead, it is human opinion of a rather non-human focus that gnaws and drives animal’s rights controversies