Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals - Assignment Example

Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals The principle of utility s that behaviors or actions are said to be right if they promote pleasure and happiness and they are wrong if they produce pain or unhappiness. Non-human animals therefore, are ought to be treated the same way as the human beings are treated in order to consider those actions right or wrong. According to the principle of utility humans ought to have moral obligations to animals, that is, we should not mistreat animals as this mistreatment encourages the development of wrong moral character that is odd with the way we treat ourselves. Kant disagrees with the principle of utility when he argues that we should instead have indirect moral obligations in treatment of animals. Kant views animals as beings that lack independent rational wills and therefore human beings do not have any moral obligation to animals since they lack the condition of being considered as objects of obligation (Altman 20). Kant’s view when we mistreat animals is that we wrong ourselves but not violating the animal rights and therefore violating the principle of utility which in this case, will consider those who mistreats animals as wrong since their actions delivers pain to the mistreated animals. For example, If somebody shoots his or her dog because it no longer gives service, he or she does not fail in his duty to that dog because the dog is an irrational being which cannot judge, however, the one who does that acts in an inhuman way and damages that humanity that is in himself or herself that is ought to be shown towards humankind. Utilitarianism accounts for both human and nonhuman rights. The basic principle of utility has a moral consideration of animal rights and therefore animals ought to be treated the same way as human beings. The principle of utility implies that animals should be treated well in order to produce happiness for the animals. If you chop off the head of a donkey you have done wrong to the donkey itself and if you allow it to rest you give that animal the pleasure it deserves. Utilitarianism accounts for equal moral concern to human and nonhuman beings which mean killing an animal for other reasons other than food is wrong, bullfighting and even using animals for medical experimentations is unjustifiable. Kant argues that the fact that rational beings ought to have indirect moral obligation on animals has been pointed out in his arguments (Altman 23). Animals do not have the rational capacities that are considered by Kant to constitute humanity. Animals are considered to have the same status as those non-living materials, that is, the animals becomes objects and tools of the interest of rational human beings. The animals can therefore be used by the rational human beings at their own pleasure since animals do not have the ability to judge and are irrational beings. Kant also argues that animals ought to be treated well since we are all in the same relative ends, but the reason as to why we ought to treat them right is not because they have rights but they are of value to those people with rights. When you chop off the head of your cat; it is wrong not because you harmed the cat, but because it harms you who cares about the cat (Altman 24). I would criticize on Kant’s argument that human beings should have indirect moral obligation when treating animals and that when you mistreat animals you do not violate the animals right. Kant’s logo centric value which implies that animals are of less value as compared to humans should be rejected so that direct duties to animals can be accommodated. I think we should care about the animals because to some extent animals’ welfare is valuable extrinsically in some cases. This is because of some ethical reasons, for instance, if you harm your neighbor’s cat, he/she will be harmed and also suffer. In this sense the cat’s welfare is extrinsically valuable to your neighbor and therefore should not be harmed. Another ethical reason why we should not harm the cat is because the cat has its own welfare making it intrinsically valuable (Altman 25). Animals’ welfare is mostly taken into account due to some of our ethical reasons which are instrumental. For example, in attempt to preserve an endangered bird species, one of the birds is captured and cared for due to some instrumental reasons. The bird captured is meant for conserving the entire bird species group. In this case, the bird’s welfare is enhanced since it is valuable. The reason as to why the bird’s welfare is promoted at this point is basically to protect the entire bird species group from extinction. This supposes that we should have direct duties in treating the animals which contradicts with Kant’s argument of having indirect duties towards animals which leads to animal rights (Altman 26). The principle of utility is just in the way it addresses the issue of treating animals to deliver happiness to them. Utilitarianism does not justify the way we treat animals for food, clothing and medical experimentations. I support the fact that it is wrong to treat animals in a different manner just because they are not humans. For a utilitarian an act is wrong if it produces more suffering to an animal than an alternative. The principle of utility seems to be better off since it supports that animals have their rights. Some nonhumans have the capability of suffering therefore rational humans and irrational nonhumans should be treated equally. In utilitarianism, many actions towards animals cause unhappiness more than happiness. The principle of utility however justifies killing of animals for food, such that you painlessly kill the cow to be eaten and bring another animal to life by rearing of animals in which for my case I advocate for. The slaughtering of animals for food makes utilitarianism better than Kant’s argument who argues that animals can be killed for any reason and in any manner (Altman 27). Works Cited Altman, Matthew C. Kant and Applied Ethics: The Uses and Limits of Kants Practical Philosophy. Chichester [etc.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. Print. Read More