Kant would certainly agree with Cohen, but there are many who criticize that view as outdated and inhumane.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...
He wrote in his Lectures on Anthropology, "If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men" (Kant, LE, 240) (Gruen). Thus, Kant feels that true humanity comes from learning how to treat lesser beings with kindness and respect. This is true today, where many parents are still discovering that taking care of a pet can bring maturity and responsibility to most children. Even more, developing kindness to "irrational" beings can only create a kinder heart toward all suffering, whether the sufferer is human, or beast. Cruelty to animals means different things to different people. To Kant, it meant the inability to deal effectively with others. To many activists, such as Peter Singer, it means much more. It means the ability to make other beings suffer, and that can only underline the innate cruelty of humankind that shows itself in many other ways. Cruelty to animals is the manifestation of many other societal evils, and even Emmanuel Kant might see at least some wisdom in that belief.
References
Cohen, Carl. "The Case for the Use of Animals in Biomedical Research." Rice University. (1986). 6 Dec. 2006. http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~norcross/Cohen.pdf
Gruen, Lori. "The Moral Status of Animals." Stanford University. (2003). 6 Dec. 2006. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-animal/
Singer, Pete. "Do Animals Feel Pain?" AnimalConcerns.org. (1990). 6 Dec. 2006. http://articles.animalconcerns.org/ar-voices/archive/pain.html
Zak, Steven. "Ethics and Animals." Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Science, Technology, and Society, Fifth Edition, Thomas A. Easton, ed. New York: McGraw Hill/Duskin. 2002, pp. 278-286.
