Animal rights: philosophical foundations and contemporary debates

¶ … Immanuel Kant believed about the treatment of animals and animal rights, along with criticism of his viewpoint. The issue of animal rights is an emotional and often contentious issue, and many people, such as Peter Singer, have very strong viewpoints about it. The Kantian view on animal rights is logical rather than emotional, and sees animals as irrational, without real feelings or emotions, but simply something to be "dealt with." Man has a duty to treat animals humanely, he believes, but that is all. Animals are not on the same level as humans, and so, they are not to be considered when considering the moral and philosophical aspects of life. However, there are many animal rights activists who hotly deny this unemotional view of animals, and believe animals feel and think just as humans do, and so, they should enjoy the same kinds of rights that humans enjoy.

Kant's thoughts on animals have been discussed by many other philosophers in the discussion of animals and animal rights. For example, Carl Cohen, who advocates the use of animals for biomedical research notes the influence of Kant's theories. He writes Kant uses an "emphasis on the universal human possession of a uniquely moral will and the autonomy its use entails. Humans confront choices that are purely moral; humans -- but certainly not dogs or mice -- lay down moral laws, for others and for themselves. Human beings are self-legislative, morally autonomous" (Cohen). Thus, animals are incapable of moral thought or choice, and so, they do not accord the same rights that humans do. Humans are highest on the philosophical ladder in Kant's view, which blends with his views on other areas of life and living, such as the value of rationality and rational thought. Kant believes that beings who do not exhibit these qualities are "things" rather than beings, and this is the difference between man and animals (Gruen). Kant continues, "The fact that the human being can have the representation 'I' raises him infinitely above all the other beings on earth. By this he is a person....that is, a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one's discretion" (Kant, LA, 7, 127) (Gruen). Thus, animals are disposable, and there is little need to worry about their feelings or thoughts at all.

This moral theory has been popular for centuries, and is championed by many others who believe humans are the only beings who can feel, can govern themselves, and are capable of rational and organized thought. Many of those who oppose animal rights also champion these same beliefs, both philosophically and morally, and find it difficult to understand the current propensity of society to humanize pets and make them a part of the family, or give them human qualities. Kant would certainly disagree with these ideas, since he sees the basic value of animals as a way to teach humanity - otherwise they are simply things. To see things elevated to nearly human status in society would probably stun Kant, and make him even more passionate about his beliefs that animals are not rational, and cannot comprehend or benefit from their elevated status in society.

In an age when pet owners are becoming more involved with their pets' lives every day, Kant's views may seem cold and unemotional. They are certainly far different from the views of one of the premier animal rights activists, Peter Singer, who expressively notes, "Nearly all the external signs that lead us to infer pain in other humans can be seen in other species, especially the species most closely related to us -- the species of mammals and birds" (Singer). Singer continues that animals must feel pain in order to survive. He states, "A capacity to feel pain obviously enhances a species' prospects for survival, since it causes members of the species to avoid sources of injury" (Singer). Clearly, this Utilitarian view is far different from Kant's view of animals as things, with little real value for humans, other than teaching them how to treat lesser creatures with dignity to show their own humanity (Gruen). Kant would probably be bewildered, or at least appalled at the rights given to animals today, and would certainly agree with writers such as Cohen, who view the morality of using animals for research as unquestionably the right thing to do. Kant would certainly agree with Cohen, but there are many who criticize that view as outdated and inhumane.

Kant's views do not acknowledge that animals could have feelings. Singer continues, "[W]e know that these animals have nervous systems very like ours, which respond physiologically like ours do when the animal is in circumstances in which we would feel pain: an initial rise of blood pressure, dilated pupils, perspiration, an increased pulse rate, and, if the stimulus continues, a fall in blood pressure" (Singer). Anyone who has interacted with animals has seen an animal react sharply to pain or punishment, and many studies have been completed that animals have complex brains, and some have extremely complex societies, with clear leaders and pecking orders, such as wolves and elephants. Animals can express their pain with cries, screams, and avoidance of the things that cause pain, which means not only do they feel and understand pain; they are wise enough to avoid it and can learn to avoid it.

Kant would probably agree with animal testing, as it can aid the treatment of many human diseases, and the harm of a few animals for the good of rational human beings makes perfect sense. However, if animals can indeed feel pain and can suffer, then animal testing is often cruel and abusive. Kant might agree morally with using animals to save human lives, but a visit to a testing laboratory might change his view. Many of the cruelties these labs use in the name of science are difficult to view. Cohen believes that using animals in all testing does not make sense, but it does make sense in areas where there is the most risk to humans in testing. However, another animal rights expert disagrees. He writes, "Rights thought dictates that we cannot kill one rights-holder to save another - or even more than one other - whether or not the life of the former is 'different' from that of the latter" (Zak 281). This certainly is far from Kant's views on animals and their value to society. Kant feels they have little value other than intrinsic and humanistic value, and so, there is nothing ethically wrong with using them to benefit and enhance human life.