The Argument Of Personhood By Immanuel Kant

1227 Words3 Pages

Centuries have past with question on humanity. We still are debating and finding sources to justify what is to be a human and are we really superior to other being. Kant being a successful philosopher of 18th century brought Kantian ethics to life. He talks about personhood in an ontological perspective. His ethics is based on the concept of “duty ethics” and virtue. He believes the only virtue that can be entertained in philosophy is the virtue of good will, as everything else will interfere with it. Immanuel Kant’s personhood argument is well elaborated by Gruen.

To begin with, personhood makes a being valuable and morally considerable. Personhood is defined based on a set of functions and abilities such as being aware of self, the ability to relate and form bonds with other, …show more content…

I agree with the fact that they don’t completely dismiss animal right. I also agree that non-humans cannot be seen as a person. That would mean that feeding on an animal would be wrong as it would violate its rights but feeding on a animal is a natural response of a being on higher level in the food chain. We cannot stop feeding on animals. But, the theory can be further elaborated such as in the case of utilitarian ethics, it would be wrong to kill and animal and feed on it, if it was living in a low quality life in a confined space. That is morally wrong as the rights of the animal has been violated for the sole purpose of feeding humans. On the other hand, if the animal was raised in a healthy environment, lived a healthy life then killing the animal for feeding is not considered wrong. As the animal has lived its life and served its purpose to the food chain. The idea that an animal does not have a stand for itself is looked down upon. When taking moral decision for non-human, some level of interest should be given to the subject matter itself. It is wrong to take a decision about a being without relating to that

Show More
Related

  • Analysis of Immanuel Kant's Arguements in The Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”

    553 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the essay titled “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” published in the Morality and Moral Controversies course textbook, Immanuel Kant argues that the view of the world and its laws is structured by human concepts and categories, and the rationale of it is the source of morality which depends upon belief in the existence of God. In Kant’s work, categorical imperative was established in order to have a standard rationale from where all moral requirements derive. Therefore, categorical imperative is an obligation to act morally, out of duty and good will alone. In Immanuel Kant’s writing human reason and or rational are innate morals which are responsible for helping human. Needless to say, this also allows people to be able to distinct right from wrong. For the aforementioned reasons, there is no doubt that any action has to be executed solely out of a duty alone and it should not focus on the consequence but on the motive and intent of the action. Kant supports his argument by dividing the essay into three sections. In the first section he calls attention to common sense mor...

    Read More

  • Mary Anne Warren's Belief on Abortion

    930 Words  | 2 Pages

    In order to define personhood, one must first define a human. A Human can be thought about in two different senses, a moral human sense and a genetic human sense. In a moral sense, humans can be thought of as a person who is a member of the moral community. In a genetic sense, humans are merely any physical being categorized as a being in the human species. From this one can conclude that a person is a human in the moral sense. Furthermore, characteristics of a person must be defined in order to differentiate moral beings from genetic humans.

    Read More

  • Immanuel Kant's Philosophy Essay

    1794 Words  | 4 Pages

    Philosophy is one’s oxygen. Its ubiquitous presence is continuously breathed in and vital to survival, yet its existence often goes unnoticed or is completely forgotten. Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant was one of the many trees depositing this indispensable system of beliefs into the air. Philosophy is present in all aspects of society, no matter how prominent it may be. As Kant was a product of the Scientific Revolution in Europe, the use of reason was an underlying component in the entirety of his ideas. One of his main principles was that most human knowledge is derived from experience, but one also may rely on instinct to know about something before experiencing it. He also stated that an action is considered moral based on the motive behind it, not the action itself. Kant strongly believed that reason should dictate goodness and badness (McKay, 537). His philosophies are just as present in works of fiction as they are in reality. This is exemplified by Lord of the Flies, a fiction novel written by William Golding. The novel strongly focuses on the origins of evil, as well as ethics, specifically man’s treatment of animals and those around him. Kant’s philosophy is embedded in the thoughts and actions of Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon throughout the novel. Kant’s beliefs also slither into “Snake,” a poem by D.H. Lawrence, focusing on the tainting of the pure human mind by societal pressures and injustices. Overall, both the poet in “Snake” and Piggy, Ralph, Jack, and Simon in Lord of the Flies showcase Immanuel Kant’s theories on ethics, reasoning, and nature.

    Read More

  • When is it ever morally permissible to kill and eat animals?

    738 Words  | 2 Pages

    In accordance with the “rights view” moral theory, since human beings are capable of moral obligations, they have a prima facie moral obligation not to kill animals and since animals are incapable of understanding moral obligation, the animals have a prima facie moral right to live (Lehman). Prima facie is a term used when a view is considered as correct until proven otherwise. The “rights view” however does not say that humans can never kill animals. In fact, under certain conditions, prima facie moral obligations can be overridden making it morally permissible for human beings to kill animals.

    Read More

  • Carl Cohen's Do Animals Have Rights?

    722 Words  | 2 Pages

    After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Immanuel Kant's Statement On The Declaration Of Independence

    1085 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immanuel Kant is one of the renowned representatives of German modern philosophy which was predominantly built on the philosophical concepts of human right, mind, morals and the importance of ownership. His central concept is reason and philosophical epistemology is based not only on theoretical, but also combined with the empirical aspects, which refers to the practical philosophy that covers from human behavior to human action. Generally speaking, the practical philosophy deals with the ground concept that relates to the human deliberative action. In the “Critique of Pure Reason” says that there is only congenital right, the independence which is the right to be detached from the other’s interest. Kant’s

    Read More

  • Kant's Moral Theory, By Immanuel Kant

    1365 Words  | 3 Pages

    Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex

    Read More

  • Kantian Philosophy: Immanuel Kant

    990 Words  | 2 Pages

    Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that

    Read More

  • Kant vs. Mill: Human Rights and Utilitarianism

    1725 Words  | 4 Pages

    Kant’s moral philosophy is built around the formal principles of ethics rather than substantive human goods. He begins by outlining the principles of reasoning that can be equally expected of all rational persons regardless of their individual desires or partial interests. It creates an ideal universal community of rational individuals who can collectively agree on the moral principles for guiding equality and autonomy. This is what forms the basis for contemporary human rig...

    Read More

  • Animal Liberation by Peter Singer

    1078 Words  | 3 Pages

    Animals can be a man's best friend; however, they can also be ones worst enemy after passing certain boundaries. Peter Singer who wrote Animal Liberation gave valid points in my opinion because animals do have a right to live and we should give them their space. Humans take everything for granted and never seem to learn until it too late. Today slaughterhouses are abusing animals in disturbing ways which has to change. I will agree with Singers concepts on animals because they have a right to live a peaceful life like humans; they have a life ahead of them once they are born. Singer argues that animals should have their interests considered throughout their lives. Singer wants to eliminate speciesism from our thoughts which is, a human discriminatory belief that all other animals are not as good as them therefore they do not have rights and we could do what we want to them. We should not be the only types of "animals" in this earth who has a set of rights we should abide.

    Read More

  • The Case for Animal Rights

    850 Words  | 2 Pages

    "The Case For Animal Rights" written by Tom Regan, promotes the equal treatment of humans and non-humans. I agree with Regan's view, as he suggests that humans and animals alike, share the experience of life, and thus share equal, inherent value.

    Read More

  • Animals and Humans Are Not Equal

    1101 Words  | 3 Pages

    The debate of whether animal rights are more important than human rights is one that people have argued mercilessly. Some people think all animals are equal. To understand this, humans must be considered animals. Humans are far more civilized than any animal, they have the power, along with understanding to control many types of sickness and disease. This understanding that humans have, keeps them at the top of the food chain.

    Read More

  • Animal Welfare In Farming

    1683 Words  | 4 Pages

    ... concept. An animal cannot follow our rules of morality, “Perhaps most crucially, what other species can be held morally accontable” (Scully 44). As a race humans must be humane to those that cannot grasp the concept. Animals do not posess human rights but they posess the right to welfare and proper treatment by their handlers.

    Read More

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS

    794 Words  | 2 Pages

    Animals have their own rights as do to humans and we should respect that and give them the same respect we give each other. Animals deserve to be given those same basic rights as humans. All humans are considered equal and ethical principles and legal statutes should protect the rights of animals to live according to their own nature and remain free from exploitation. This paper is going to argue that animals deserve to have the same rights as humans and therefore, we don’t have the right to kill or harm them in any way. The premises are the following: animals are living things thus they are valuable sentient beings, animals have feeling just like humans, and animals feel pain therefore animal suffering is wrong. 2 sources I will be using for my research are “The Fight for Animal Rights” by Jamie Aronson, an article that presents an argument in favour of animal rights. It also discusses the counter argument – opponents of animal rights argue that animals have less value than humans, and as a result, are undeserving of rights. Also I will be using “Animal Liberation” by Peter Singer. This book shows many aspects; that all animals are equal is the first argument or why the ethical principle on which human equality rests requires us to extend equal consideration to animals too.

    Read More

  • Animal Replaceability Argument

    919 Words  | 2 Pages

    This means if a one animal is killed for human pleasure is replaced with another animal. So, this argument clearly justified the killing of animal endorsing the Total views. [Question_7] Morally it is wrong to eat non human animals because there are many alternatives for human beings available in this world. If animal is the only way of human food consumption then it is justifiable but in this case many other solutions available.

    Read More

More about The Argument Of Personhood By Immanuel Kant

Open Document