The Influence Of Kant On Animal Rights

There are a variety of different views on how animals should be treated and what rights they deserve if any. Some align themselves with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose philosophy in regards to animals derives from a very human centric point of view. Kant argues that because non-human animals aren’t rational or self-conscious beings, they aren’t ends-in-themselves and as such don’t need to have rights. This may surprise some due to his history of valuing the individual’s life rather than a collective group’s life, essentially saying that one life isn’t more important than another. However this only applies to human life, according to Kant animals only have a value because they help our morality mature. Kant makes the argument that humans have an indirect duty to animals, saying we shouldn’t treat them poorly, but only because if we do abuse them we won’t
learn how to treat humans with kindness. If one disagrees with Kant may find themselves championing Peter Singer.
Singer, as opposed to Kant, takes a far more utilitarian view in regards to animal rights.
Additionally unlike Kant, Singer proclaims that animals should be given rights as they are sentient and as such can feel pain. This can be considered as an alignment with utilitarianism because, according to Singer, of its focus on maximising happiness for every living being, including animals. Singer is of the opinion that animals should be liberated similarly to how minorities and females experienced their own liberation movements. If one doesn’t grant animals equal consideration, then according to Singer, they’re guilty of something he calls “Speciesism”, which is essentially a prejudice against animals which assumes that humans are superior to all other living beings. I find this term to be a little ridiculous and somewhat offensive. I understand what he’s saying, but I don’t think that racism or sexism can be equated to treating animals poorly, which it automatically does by giving it an “-ism” suffix. At any rate, those who don’t fully agree with Singer may side with the American philosopher, Tom
Regan.
Regan’s views are similar to that of Singer, the only difference being to the extent to which animals are respected. Regan calls for a revolution for animals, vehemently saying that testing products on animals should be abolished, as well as saying that animal farming, and commercial and sport hunting should be ended. He describes there being a fundamental wrong in how humans treat animals, that wrong not being the pain or suffering inflicted upon the animals, but rather the wrong is the system that society has set up to allow animals to be treated as a resource. Regan also rejects utilitarianism, as it doesn’t take into account the individuals who may be harmed by the actions taken in order to benefit the majority, ironically making his philosophy fairly Kantian in nature.
As cruel as it sounds to say, I personally find myself agreeing with Kant more than the others. To be fair, I don’t think that animals have a solely instrumental value, I believe that all living creatures have a mixture of both instrumental and intrinsic value. This is because I believe that since they are living beings we owe it to them to not treat them cruelly. This is where I diverge from Kant, as he believes that we as humans only have an indirect duty to animals saying that we are only kind in order to develop feelings of empathy. Whereas I argue that we shouldn’t intentionally harm them because they are living beings. I’m not quite sure that they have moral rights, though, I mean besides the right to not be treated heartlessly, this is because I think that for an animal to have moral rights they would require to have rationality. It may sound as if I agree with Singer or Regan, but my issues with them are far deeper than the ones I hold with Kant.
Truth be told, I find both Singer’s and Regan’s view to be a little off. For one, I don’t think that the suffering of an animal is on an equal level to that of human suffering. It could be because of Singer’s aforementioned “speciesism”, but I simply view humans as having more value than any other animal, and as mentioned earlier I think that “speciesism” is just a bad term. I agree with both of them that there shouldn’t be hunting for sports, as it is simply unnecessary. I also agree with Regan that Singer’s reliance on utilitarianism is troubling because it fails to recognize individuals. Not to mention that utilitarianism can backfire on his brand of environmental ethics, because if animal testing were to lead to a cure for cancer, then infinitely more beings would benefit from that research, than the however many animals that died would have benefited society through their living. I’m not quite sure what Singer would say in response to that. But I personally support animal testing for medical reasons, though not for cosmetic products, as causing suffering just for vain and vapid reasons is just pointless.
The only criticism I can see in my philosophy is that it may seem weak to an outside observer. But my point is that while animals aren’t around only to be taken advantage of by humans, that doesn’t mean they’re on equal footing with us. I think there are layers of value, something like, humans at top, then animals, then plants, then objects. Humans are rational, sentient beings so we have moral rights, Animals, while sentient, don’t have moral rights because they aren’t rational. But because they are sentient that means that we humans have a responsibility to not harm them. Seeing as plants aren’t sentient and can’t feel pain, I feel that they are below animals on that scale. But because they are living beings, they are above any object, as material goods are transient and most objects can be replaced, while living beings can’t.