Analyzing Kant's Discussion Of Animal Vivisection

270 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Human relations with animals

A deontologist believes that irrespective of consequences some acts are deemed intrinsically wrong (Flanagan, 2016b). Kant (Flanagan, 2016b) offers the following “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”. Therefore, morality is determined by the principle of the action, rather than the action itself. From a deontological stance to cause “unnecessary suffering” is intrinsically wrong, thus animals as morally innocent, vulnerable and being able to feel pain (Linzey, 2013; Rollin, 2011) are owed moral obligations. Furthermore, “ a morally considerable being is a being who can be wronged in a morally relevant sense” (Gruen, 2014). Therefore, discussion of animal vivisection in

Show More
Related

  • Consequentialism In Training Day

    908 Words  | 2 Pages

    Deontology diverges from consequentialism because deontology concentrates on the rightness or wrongness of the actions themselves instead of the consequences. There are different types of deontological theories. According to Kant, theoretical reasoning helps us discover what we should believe whereas the practical reasoning tells us what we should do. Morality falls under theoretical reasoning. In Kantian deontology, motives matter. Rather than consequences, it is the motive of an action makes that action morally right or wrong. Likewise, if an action intends to hurt someone, but eventually it benefits the other person, then it does not make that action morally right. All in all, deontology comes down to common-sense: whether it is a good action or a bad

    Read More

  • Michael Hanlon's Vivisection Is Right?

    884 Words  | 2 Pages

    Imagine a puppy spending his entire life in a locked cage where he is deprived of food and water, and force-fed chemicals from time to time. This is the life of animals in a laboratory. Live-animal experimentation, also known as vivisection, is not only unethical, but also cruel and unnecessary. In the article “Vivisection is Right, but it is Nasty- and We must be Brave Enough to Admit This”, Michael Hanlon claims vivisection is a moral necessity that without the use of animals in the laboratory, humans would not have modern medicine like antibiotics, analgesic, and cancer drugs (1). For example, Hanlon believes sewing kittens’ eyelids together can aid researchers to study the effects of amblyopia in children (1). Conversely, the use of animals

    Read More

  • The Ethics of Animal Use in Biomedical Research

    1849 Words  | 4 Pages

    Both in and out of philosophical circle, animals have traditionally been seen as significantly different from, and inferior to, humans because they lacked a certain intangible quality – reason, moral agency, or consciousness – that made them moral agents. Recently however, society has patently begun to move beyond this strong anthropocentric notion and has begun to reach for a more adequate set of moral categories for guiding, assessing and constraining our treatment of other animals. As a growing proportion of the populations in western countries adopts the general position of animal liberation, more and more philosophers are beginning to agree that sentient creatures are of a direct moral concern to humans, though the degree of this concern is still subject to much disagreement. The political, cultural and philosophical animal liberation movement demands for a fundamental transformation of humans’ present relations to all sentient animals. They reject the idea that animals are merely human resources, and instead claim that they have value and worth in themselves. Animals are used, among other things, in basic biomedical research whose purpose is to increase knowledge about the basic processes of human anatomy. The fundamental wrong with this type of research is that it allows humans to see animals as here for them, to be surgically manipulated and exploited for money. The use of animals as subjects in biomedical research brings forth two main underlying ethical issues: firstly, the imposition of avoidable suffering on creatures capable of both sensation and consciousness, and secondly the uncertainty pertaining to the notion of animal rights.

    Read More

  • Summary Of A Question Of Ethics By Jane Goodall

    677 Words  | 2 Pages

    In her essay “A Question of Ethics,” Jane Goodall, a scientist who has studied chimpanzees for years, tries to resolve a heavily debated ethical dilemma: Under what circumstances is it acceptable to cause animal suffering to prevent human suffering? Her answer, however, remains uncertain. Although Goodall challenges scientists to avoid conducting unnecessary tests on animals, she does not explain the criteria by which scientists should determine necessity.

    Read More

  • Kant's Categorical Argument

    1063 Words  | 3 Pages

    would be unfair to use the one to the side as a means to save the

    Read More

  • Kant and Mill’s Positions on Capital Punishment

    1862 Words  | 4 Pages

    Capital punishment is most commonly known as the death penalty or punishment by death for a crime. It is a highly controversial topic and many people and great thinkers alike have debated about it. Two well-known figures are Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. Although both stand in favor of capital punishment, their reasons for coming to this conclusion are completely different. I personally stand against capital punishment, but my own personal view on it incorporates a few mixed elements from both individuals as well as my own personal insight. Firstly, in order to understand why Kant and Mill support capital punishment, we must first understand their views on punishment in general.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Analysis

    1486 Words  | 3 Pages

    With reason being an aspect of human nature that makes humans particularly unique and valuable, it is not surprising why Immanuel Kant chose to also consider the value of humans as rational beings when developing his ethical system. In fact, he describes that with this very rational nature, human beings may be able to discover unconditional and universal moral laws. One’s will must simply be influenced by their moral duties, rather than motivations from one’s emotions or inclinations to comply. Nonetheless, to uncover the strength of this ethical position, Kant’s perspective on human nature as the basis for these moral theories requires analysis. With this being done, in light of observations intended to analyze human moral behavior, there

    Read More

  • Animal Experimentation Is Not Ethical!

    731 Words  | 2 Pages

    An ongoing conflict among the human species is that of animal cruelty, whether it be by scientific experiments, tests, or research. I frequently wonder, do the individuals performing these atrocious tasks ask themselves if what he/she is doing is ethically correct? I believe that it is not right to treat animals in such an inhumane manner, but to treat them as our own kind, for they are clever, spirited beings. These helpless animals cannot defend themselves against abuse. In my opinion, it is morally appropriate to grant the same rights to animals as we human beings acquire and to end, or even just to minimize, animal cruelty in laboratories. Although there have been some benefits of animal testing for medical prospect, alternative methods exist and may even be more effective.

    Read More

  • Deontological Moral Theory

    1228 Words  | 3 Pages

    Deontological moral theory is a Non-Consequentialist moral theory. While consequentialists believe the ends always justify the means, deontologists assert that the rightness of an action is not simply dependent on maximizing the good, if that action goes against what is considered moral. It is the inherent nature of the act alone that determines its ethical standing. For example, imagine a situation where there are four critical condition patients in a hospital who each need a different organ in order to survive. Then, a healthy man comes to the doctor’s office for a routine check-up. According to consequentialism, not deontology, the doctor should and must sacrifice that one man in order to save for others. Thus, maximizing the good. However, deontological thought contests this way of thinking by contending that it is immoral to kill the innocent despite the fact one would be maximizing the good. Deontologists create concrete distinctions between what is moral right and wrong and use their morals as a guide when making choices. Deontologists generate restrictions against maximizing the good when it interferes with moral standards. Also, since deontologists place a high value on the individual, in some instances it is permissible not to maximize the good when it is detrimental to yourself. For example, one does not need to impoverish oneself to the point of worthlessness simply to satisfy one’s moral obligations. Deontology can be looked at as a generally flexible moral theory that allows for self-interpretation but like all others theories studied thus far, there are arguments one can make against its reasoning.

    Read More

  • The Dark Knight: Utilitarianism Or Deontology?

    1179 Words  | 3 Pages

    Deontology in Immanuel Kant’s point of view is all about duty and not inclination of morality. For example, the First Proposition of Morality is an action that must be done from duty to have moral worth (298). In other words, if one were feeling generous and wanted to give money to the ones who really need it, this technically would not be moral worthy according to Kant. The reason why for this is because that person did not do it out of duty but instead out of free will. For one’s action to have moral worth, it could be an example of one going to work everyday. Everyone has their own specific job to do at work and that is their duty. All in all, Kant views that deontology must come from an action of duty in order for it to be moral worthy and it is not the consequences that determines what is right or wrong.

    Read More

  • A Philosophical View of Animal Rights

    3952 Words  | 8 Pages

    Should animals be harmed to benefit mankind? This pressing question has been around for at least the past two centuries. During the early nineteenth century, animal experiments emerged as an important method of science and, in fact, marked the birth of experimental physiology and neuroscience as we currently know it. There were, however, guidelines that existed even back then which restricted the conditions of experimentation. These early rules protected the animals, in the sense that all procedures performed were done so with as little pain as possible and solely to investigate new truths. Adopting the animals? perspectives, they would probably not agree that these types of regulations were much protection, considering the unwanted pain that they felt first followed by what would ultimately be their death. But, this is exactly the ethical issue at hand. For the most part, animal rights are debated in regards to two issues: 1) whether animals have the ability to rationalize or go through a logical thought process and 2) whether or not animals are able to experience pain. However, ?it will not do simply to cite differences between humans and animals in order to provide a rational basis for excluding animals from the scope of our moral deliberations? (Rollin 7). This, Bernard Rollin claims, would be silly. He says that to do this is comparable to a person with a full head of hair excluding all bald men from his moral deliberations simply because they are bald. The true ethical question involved is, ?do these differences serve to justify a moral difference?? (Rollin 7). Also, which differences between humans and non-humans are significant enough to be considered in determining the non-human?s fate?

    Read More

  • Kant and the Categorical Imperative

    913 Words  | 2 Pages

    whether it be the best rule if it became a general rule. If, in the

    Read More

  • Animal Rights Persuasive Essay

    700 Words  | 2 Pages

    There are tremendous amount of debates that go on in this world on a daily basis. One of the most talked about debates of the century is that of animal rights and experimentations. This debate, also known in the animal rights community as vivisection, is one of the most difficult to understand. Individuals have numerous different outlooks on animals. Many individuals look upon animals as companions while others see animals as an object of advancing medical techniques. No matter what ones perception is of animals, the fact remains that animals are being exploited by research facilities and cosmetics companies all throughout the world. In spite of the fact that humans frequently benefit from successful animal experimentations, the pain, and occasionally death that often occurs is not worth the human benefit. Hence, animals should not be the use of research.

    Read More

  • Animal Testing in Medical Research

    1346 Words  | 3 Pages

    During the course of medical research, animals are being deployed in painful ways and used in many experiments to test new discoveries or treatments. It is morally wrong to harm and cause pain or distress to animals in any way during the course of medical research because animals are part of the moral society and therefore should be treated with equity and respect. According to the theory of utilitarianism, the act is moral if it yields the results of pleasure and no pain and produces the greatest goods for the greatest number of people where everyone counts equally in society. According to Jeremy Bentham’s version of utilitarianism, everyone is counted and valued equally in society and this includes animals as well. (Collier & Haliburton, 2011, p. 5-6) Even if the uses of animal testing in medical research produce goods for the society in terms of

    Read More

  • The Importance Of Deontology

    1747 Words  | 4 Pages

    A deontologist asserts that you should do your duty even if you or others suffer as a consequence. Deontology is seen as an obligation to protect regardless of the impact it has on others, whether it be people, animals, and/or the environment and so on. “Deontology focuses on the duties and obligations one has in carrying out actions rather than on the consequences of those actions” (Mosser, 2013). According to deontologist Immanuel Kant, when doing your duty as a deontologist there are “categorical imperatives” that should be followed. In other words there are exceptions for why one is not taking action. “All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically” (Kant,

    Read More

More about Analyzing Kant's Discussion Of Animal Vivisection

Open Document