How Does Kant Treat Animals

In the Vancouver Aquarium, there are many aquatic animals that have been encaged for research purposes and entertainment. Some people may say animals have a right to life, and human have no right to interfere in their natural lives because they are living creatures just like us. However, Kant (239) suggests that “animals are not included in the moral community because they lack rational autonomy”. Based on this principle, in Kant’s view, disagrees having animal right that people do not have an obligation to treat animals as same as other human beings.

Kant view animals as “mere means” (Kant, 239) because he believes animals has no self consciousness and they cannot judge decisions by their interest. Animals cannot think rationally and logically in a same way as humans so he excluded animals from the moral community where we solely respect those who have rational autonomy and respect their rights. Kant classified human beings and animals differently. He believes that animals are viewed as values or price for human purpose use because animals only behave responding only to their inclination even though they are sentient, and their values are dependent on our human desire only.

Kant also argues that “Our duties towards animals are merely indirect

duties to humanity” (Kant, 239), and it is saying that people treat animals kindly and humanly not because animals have rights but their act toward animals may reflect their behavior toward other people. Animals are just a value to people who do have rights. Kant view animals similarly as inanimate objects. For example, we have obligation not to tear apart a cute little doll not because the doll has a right but because they have value to people, and the action seems violent to other people. Kant considers those values of inanimate object and animals only for our own benefit.
Kant will agree for having animal show because those animals are valued solely for human desire only, and people who come to the show even spend their money to watch the fascinating scene. The aquatic animals are no rational agents that they may have no idea what they are used for, whether they are being tortured or taken care of by the aquarium. Some people argue that the aquarium is oppressing those wild animals’ lives and instincts by captivating in a cage, but Kant will argue that the act of the aquarium on the animal appears to be harsh not because they are interfering the animal lives but the act toward the animals just seems inhuman.
In contrast, I strongly disagree with Kant’s view toward the aquatic animals in the Vancouver aquarium. Kant is just assuming that the animals have no self-conscious but there are animals that have significant rational capacities. For example, dolphins are known to have high IQ and they possess intellectual ability as similar to human babies. They can communicate each other, and also can solve problem that needs logical thinking. Some dolphins may even outperform human such as people who have metal disability. Just because we cannot understand what the animals are saying, it is wrong to conclude that animals cannot think rationally and do not have opinions.
Moreover, I do not agree with Kant’s view of animals as our value or property.

Human beings are arrogant and think they are the superior species in Earth. However, human beings are not born to rule the world, and we are just like one of the creatures that are living in this world. What if there were stronger species in Earth that use human beings just as like we use the animals in the aquarium. Human beings could be used for unwanted performing shows and may lose our lives in vain from deadly experiments. We should not be keeping animals under our property just like we do not own other human beings. They are sentient and have cognitive capacity just like human beings therefore treating harshly or differently is

speciesist.
Some people may argue back to my belief for eating factory farm meat. Eating meat is inevitable in human nutrition because they provide so much essential resource to our diet. However, factory farmed animals are solely treated as output, and we have to provide some respect and protection at least for giving their precious life for human benefit. For example, in wildlife habitats predators hunt for their prey and have to keep consuming nutrition for survival just like human beings. However, they do not encage nor breed their prey unlike factory farmers. In fact, people are way more brutal than wildlife predators. People need to consider how the factory farmed animals suffer and get distressed.
As Kant’s discussion with the animal right suggests, it is plausible to assume that animal has no right due to lack of rational autonomy and not part of the moral community. In contrast, as I have argued, we cannot decide whether they lack self-consciousness from our point of view, and they have cognitive capacities just like us. However, the conflict over animal is so complex that there should be more balanced perspective of human and animal rights.