Immanuel Kant's Views On Animal Rights

Araka Bell
Humanities 3710 EOL21
Indiana Tech
September 15, 2015

1. Kant does not believe that animals can have rights. Why doesn't he think so? And despite his denial of animals' rights, he doesn't think we can just treat animals however we want. Again, why doesn't he think so? Explain his view of our moral or immoral treatment of animals.

Kant felt that humans have no duty to animals. He stated ““Animals are not self-conscious and are there merely as a means to an end. The end is man.” According to Immanuel Kant, humans have no direct duties to animals. Kant’s moral view of animals is that if it benefits humankind then the right of the animal should have no regard at all. Kant believed in science, he believed that if an animal had a scientific
That was his only concern for the animal, that our treatment of them did not turn us into them.

2. What does Singer mean by saying that all animals are equal? What does he mean by "speciesism," and how is it like racism and sexism?
What does Singer mean by saying that all animals are equal? What does he mean by "speciesism," and how is it like racism and sexism?

According to Merriam Webster dictionary Speciesism is: Giving moral preference to the interests of members of one's own species, over identical interests of members of a different species, solely because it is a member of your species. Singer’s has a utilitarian argument that prevents eating meat. His argument for not eating meat, his claim that animal experimentation is immoral, is based on his claim that these practices are speciesist.

Singer's Utilitarianism does give some sense of moral equality between humans and animals. He felt that animals have identical interests that are equally morally important as humans and that they must be treated with equal concern. Singer says: "Speciesism. . . the belief that we are entitled to treat members of other species in a way in which it would be wrong to treat members of our own
Norcross believes Steinbock's argument in favor of speciesism fails. Why does he reject her view? And on what grounds does he believe that animals are required to be given full moral status?
Alastair Norcross rejects Steinbocks argument out of hand. He states “…the claim is that human interests and/or rights are stronger or more important than those of animals, because humans possess a kind and level of rationality not possessed by animals. How much of our current behavior towards animals this justifies depends on just how much consideration should be given to animal interests, and on what rights, if any, they posses (sic)” Norcross is dismissing Steinbock’s argument as asinine.
He believes that animals should be given full moral status because there is nothing overly special about ALL humans. He brought up the point of crimes against humanity that some are on trial for. Some are guilty, some are not. This in his opinion makes our moral high road temporary. He further states. “Even setting aside the not inconsiderable worries about the conventionality of biological categories, it is not at all clear why this distinction should be morally relevant.” For Norcross this argument was