Immanuel Kant's View Of Ethics And Philosophical Views Of Animal Ethics

Philosophical Views of Animal Ethics For this essay, I chose to look at Immanuel Kant’s and John Stuart Mill’s views on the human treatment of non-human animals, specifically in the case of animal testing. I will look at Kant’s and Mill’s views separately, then the issue of the testing of animals, and finally, the philosophers’ views on the issue. I believe that both philosophers would come to the same conclusion, that animal testing is unethical in most cases. Immanuel Kant has a deontological view of ethics. He writes on duty-based ethics, meaning you must act from duty to make an act a moral action. Acting simply in accordance with duty does not make an act a moral action. His sense of duty comes from the three formulas for the Categorical

First, Universal Law. Can everyone in the world test on animals without a logical contradiction? Well, if you test on all animals, it could have substantial effects on reproduction rate among these species. Some animals could very well go extinct if every one was test on. So, the first part of the categorical imperative fails, because if you run out of test subjects, that act is no longer Universal Law. However, the second part passes. Animals are not considered humanity, so you can use them as a means to an end as much as you desire. It passes the third principle in the same way. Animals don’t have practical reason, so you can’t restrict their practical reason. But since one of the principles fail, the categorical imperative itself fails, so Kant would view it as immoral if acted

Mill would most likely take the same argumentative position, since they are both Utilitarians. Singer’s argument has three premises. First, if a being suffers, it has an interest to avoid suffering. Second, if a being has interests, we must give moral consideration to that thing. Third, both human and nonhuman animals have the capacity to suffer. The conclusion Singer comes to is that we must give equal moral consideration to both human and nonhuman animals. Does animal testing increase happiness and reduce suffering? Most often, the answer is no. So often it would be unethical. However, if there ever was a case in which it would increase happiness and reduce suffering, such as if testing on one animal could cure a disease 400 people have, that would be ethical, because Mill cares about the greatest good for the greatest number. Both philosophers reach the same conclusion; that testing on animals is (most often) morally wrong. However, my personal views match Mill’s way of looking at it rather than Kant’s. I believe that if the suffering is needless, like it so often is when testing cosmetics or food on animals, it is unethical. However, if there was a situation where testing on one or a few animals could cure hundreds of other animals or people, it would be morally wrong to not test on the animal, because you would not be decreasing suffering. The greatest happiness for the greatest number