Talking about animals and how ethics is applied to them is something that varies greatly depending on which philosopher you’re talking to. Some philosophers state that humans are superior to animals based on the fact that humans can use reason to make choices, while animals default to their instincts for their choices. This would mean that animals are merely instrumental to humans and can be used to serve the needs of humans in any way they see fit. Kant doesn’t differ much on how he thinks about animal mainly because Kant believes that good will is the only inherit good and as animals do not have good will they naturally don’t share the same values as humans, but were Kant differs is in how he thinks the treatment of animals effects humans as Kant stated, “With regard to the animate but non-rational part of creation, violent and cruel treatment of animals is far more intimately opposed to a human being’s duty to himself, and he has a duty to refrain from this; for it dulls his shared feeling of their suffering and so weakens and gradually uproots a natural predisposition that is very serviceable to morality in one’s relation with other men.” When comparing these ideas of ethics on animals with Kant’s ideas of how ethics are applied to animals we can see the
Talking about animals and how ethics is applied to them is something that varies greatly depending on which philosopher you’re talking to. Some philosophers state that humans are superior to animals based on the fact that humans can use reason to make choices, while animals default to their instincts for their choices. This would mean that animals are merely instrumental to humans and can be used to serve the needs of humans in any way they see fit. Kant doesn’t differ much on how he thinks about animal mainly because Kant believes that good will is the only inherit good and as animals do not have good will they naturally don’t share the same values as humans, but were Kant differs is in how he thinks the treatment of animals effects humans as Kant stated, “With regard to the animate but non-rational part of creation, violent and cruel treatment of animals is far more intimately opposed to a human being’s duty to himself, and he has a duty to refrain from this; for it dulls his shared feeling of their suffering and so weakens and gradually uproots a natural predisposition that is very serviceable to morality in one’s relation with other men.” When comparing these ideas of ethics on animals with Kant’s ideas of how ethics are applied to animals we can see the