Lectures on Ethics: A Philosophical Review of Immanuel Kants Argument - Book Report/Review Example

Section/# “Lectures on Ethics A Philosophical Review of Immanuel Kant’s Argument As a preeminent philosopher thatwas uniquely interested in the means by which human morality could be defined and restricted, Immanuel Kant performed at something of an about face with regard to the treatment of animals and the means by which humans had a moral obligation to interact with them. Towards the beginning of his career and writing on issues related to philosophy and ethics, content been of the opinion that human beings could engage with animals however they saw fit; utilizing them as a means to an end if necessary. However, this particular approach changed with the publication of his piece entitled “Lectures on Ethics”. As a function of understanding this reversal and promoting a greater knowledge of what it Immanuel Kant sought to put forward, this particular analysis will be concentric upon analyzing his chain of argument, inspecting its key points, and detailing how an individual that was of an alternate opinion light necessarily argue against the position that he put forward. Accordingly, it is the hope of this particular author that such a unit of analysis will be beneficial in helping to define Immanuel Kant’s argument to a greater degree as well as proving some of the logical inconsistencies and philosophical shortcomings that it exhibits. As has been referenced briefly within the introduction, Immanuel Kant performed is something of a reversal with regard to the way in which he understood ethics and how these apply to humans with relation to animals. As he previously stipulated that animals did not have rights and could not be expected to be treated as such, the reader/philosopher is left with no other alternative but to is that animals to be treated as with any other inanimate object without a level of ethical virtue. Yet, within his piece entitled “Lectures on Ethics”, Immanuel Kant overturns this particular point of view and argues for the fact that the treatment of an animal is somehow morally and intrinsically related to the way in which an individual will interact with other human beings. In effect, Immanuel Kant’s argument was concentric upon what can be defined as ethical boundaries and the rational capacity by which an individual engage with an animal. As such, Kant’s argument was one that focused upon the extension of how a human being might necessarily treat other human beings based upon their treatment of animals. Within this particular argument, one can reasonably infer that an individual who is necessarily cruel, cold hearted, and callous towards ethical boundaries that might exist with regard to an animal would necessarily project these with respect to the way in which they engaged with human beings (Kant 64). In many ways, this particular argument delves into the core of what Immanuel as universal ethics, morality, and virtue; utilizing the case of animals as a confusing example of whether or not ethics and virtue existed or should exist, Kant was instead able to argue that the same moral dictates within humanity that allow them to live peaceably and in harmony with one another could ultimately be reflected by the means in which humans interact with animals and treated them. Essentially, what Immanuel Kant promoted within this particular line of argument is what can be referred to as an “extension argument”. As anyone familiar with logic will be quick to assert, this extension argument oftentimes does not hold up to the rigor of inquiry; due to the fact that two dissimilar and rather unrelated topics are being discussed synonymously. In the same way that the slippery slope argument would encourage one to understand that one particular action is somehow morally equivalent and similar to one of greater or lesser importance, the extension argument confuses the logical progression of understanding ethics and morality due to the fact that it is unknown whether or not animals possess free will and/or should be considered as sentient and conscious beings. For this very reason, individuals that would argue against Immanuel Kant definition of ethics with relation to animals would promote the understanding that the entire argument breaks down when one considers the fact that human morality is being extended to that which has not been proven to be “worthy” of human morality and norms. Furthermore, if an individual work to take Immanuel Kant’s line of reasoning and extended to its determinant end, it can be seen and expected that human beings could not force animals to behave in a way that they saw fit or to slaughter them for me; as these would be morally reprehensible in terms of the way in which humans would interact with one another. Although the extension argument is easy to comprehend and makes perfect sense, one can also indicate that extension arguments are not necessarily worthy of inclusion into the realm of logic and ethical theory; due in part to the fact that their gross oversimplification includes innate false comparisons. From such an understanding one can see how applying the same ethical considerations to humans as well as animals opens Pandora’s box with regard to the culpability of actions that humans share with animals. If it is indeed true that humans should extend the same ethical standards of behavior towards animals as they strive to extend toward one another, it begs the question of why Kant and others like him did not apply these standards within their own time; or why they did not attempt to expand animals rights and humane treatment with their remaining ethical and moral writings. In essence, this seems to have been nothing more than a correction and a moral “aside” that Kant broached within his later career as a means of clearing up something that had been troubling his conscience as he became more and more aware of the fact that his previous writings concerning humanity’s reasonability towards lower creatures was increasingly incongruous with the way in which moral philosophy was developing. Whereas it is clear and apparent that Immanuel Kant’s argument is profound and was far ahead of its time in terms of understandings of morality and human nature with respect to the animal kingdom, it must also be understood that is application is riddled with flaws and creates far more questions than it does answers. However, shortcut disparaging Immanuel Kant’s piece and stating that it has no place within the current world model, it must further be stipulated that Immanuel Kant’s line of reasoning with regard to the way in which humans should have a moral responsibility and ethical virtues when interacting with animals is something that has been tacitly accepted and employed within the modern world (Koch 79). One need look no further for an example than the way in which meet is prepared and slaughtered within the United States and other Western nations. The focus upon ethics and morality and the means by which animal cruelty is classified as a crime within these societies indicate the degree and extent to which Immanuel Kant definition and understanding of animal ethics and rights has come to be categorically accepted within almost all developed nations. Although the above analysis has been hypercritical of Immanuel Kant’s position with regards to its shortcomings, this should not be seen as a rationale for disparaging this particular work or otherwise disregarding its relevance to the current time. If anything, the analysis has proven that Immanuel Kant’s representation of ethics and morality concerning animals and humans has been broadly accepted and plays a vital role within the current time. Works Cited Kant, Immanuel, and Louis Infield. Lectures on ethics. London: Methuen, 1979. Print. Koch, Tom. "The Thorn In Bioethics." Journal Of Ethics & Philosophy 39.1 (2014): 75-88. Academic Search Complete. Web. 31 July 2014. Read More