Kants Categorical Imperative and Singers Views on the Eating Animals - Essay Example

Philosophy Discuss Kant’s categorical imperative. Explain the reasoning that leads to the first formulation ofthe categorical imperative (from good will through duty and respect for law). Using the example of either breaking a promise or telling a lie explain how the categorical imperative can be used to provide a prescription for action. The question of morals existence was raised in the works of many scholars. However, there are very few of them who managed to answer this question and create a theory we all can use to explain what is right and what is wrong. This answer can be found in the works of Immanuel Kant. The concept of categorical imperative is deservingly considered to be the dominant in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It states that a person should do something not because he wants to do this, but following the rule that is common for everybody and should be strictly followed. “All imperatives are expressed with an ‘ought’, which indicates how an objective law of reason relates to a will that isn’t constituted so as to be necessarily determined by it—namely, relating to it as a constraint. An imperative says that it would be good to do or to refrain from doing something, but it addresses this to a will that doesn’t always do x just because x is represented to it as good to do”(Kant 18) Kant states that if a person allows himself/herself to set the principle that will be followed only by him/her and not by the rest of the people, this person can be called immoral. Kant provides different examples to demonstrate how categorical imperative was derived. The most widespread example is a person’s request for money that he/she is not going to give back, notwithstanding that the promise is given by him/her. Kant states that if all the people break promises, they [promises] would not exist any more as people would stop believing them. Thus, promises should not be broken and there is a common law not to break the promises as this is not right. Here we meet the first reason why right is right and wrong is wrong. The actions fulfilled in accordance with the universal principles set in the society, which should be strictly followed by the people, are considered to be “right” and everything that contradicts this principle is “wrong”. Our actions should not be based on our desires, they should be implemented in accordance with the universal rule. The main thing is not to cause any harm to other people. Thus, if an action brings harm to people, as in our example, it can’t become a universal law and should not be followed. “Obviously the false promise isn’t made prudent by its merely extricating me from my present dif?culties; I have to think about whether it will in the long run cause more trouble than it saves in the present People’s loss of trust in me might be far more disadvantageous than the trouble I am now trying to avoid, and it is hard to tell whether it mightn’t be more prudent to act according to a universal maxim not ever to make a promise that I don’t intend to keep” (Kant 11). The conclusion can be made from the example that promises should not be broken as this causes harm to people. Any break of promise can be considered to be immoral. According to Kant, there is a universal law and it is immoral to break it. 2. According to Singer, we must not act so as to sacrifice a major interest for a minor interest. Explain why. Explain how this affects Singer’s views on the eating animals and use of them in experiments and his views on abortion and euthanasia. The philosophy of Peter Singler is very interesting and unique. According to Peter Singer, we should not sacrifice major interest to satisfy minor interest. Minor interest is the interest that may be ignored and we can easily do without its satisfaction. Major interest is more serious as if it is not satisfied it may cause a trouble. Single apply this statement to the issue of eating animals. He is against consuming the flesh of animals as considers the human’s desire to eat meat is a minor one in comparison with the suffering of animals: “in considering the ethics of the use of animal flesh for human food in industrialized societies, we are considering a situation in which a relatively minor human interest must be balanced against the lives and welfare of the animals involved. The principle of equal consideration of interests does not allow major interests to be sacrificed for minor interests” (Singer, ch.3). Here Singler does not mean only the killing of animals in order to get meat. He means that modern technologies allow to produce animals specially for human’s consumption and this is considered by Singler to be wrong as these animals do not have free life. Singler also talks about the experiments on animals as about minor interest of humans. He does not call upon to stop testing new medicines, which can save millions of lives, but he is against testing new cosmetics and something that is not so important and should not be done at the expense of animals’ suffering. Creating new cosmetics is minor interest as people already have plenty. The same is about food additives: “these tests are not necessary to prevent human suffering: we already have enough shampoos and food colourings. There is no need to develop new ones, which might be dangerous” (Singer, ch.3). Singler’s views on abortions deserve special attention as they are unique. The opponents of abortions state that (1) it is morally wrong to kill an innocent alive creature, (2) fetus is innocent and alive, (3) thus it should not be killed. Proponents of abortions usually consider second statement to be wrong as there are no proofs that fetus is an alive human being. Science can’t determine on what stage fetus turns into a human being and can be called a human being. As a proponent of abortions, Singler disproves the statement, however, Singler pays attention not to the second but to the first statement as he states: “The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life” (Singler 105). Speaking about euthanasia that is a controversial issue, Singler defends voluntary euthanasia that is implemented in accordance with the person’s will. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel; translated by James W. Ellington [1785]. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals 3rd ed. Hackett, 1993 Singer, Peter. Equality for Animals?. Excerpted from Practical Ethics, Cambridge, 1979, chap. 3 accessed Apr. 19, 2013 http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1979----.htm Singer, Peter. Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics, Text Publishing, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995 Read More