Should we care more about the interests of humans than the interest of animals?
In most cases, people view the interests of humans as more important than the interests of animals. The rationale behind this view is that people think that they should direct all their actions toward fulfilling their needs. For example, when people work, they do so to ensure they have enough resources to satisfy their needs. The major goal of any human action is seen as fulfilling human interests. When people decide to do something collectively, one of the underlying motivating factors is the consequence of their collective action, which in most cases works in their favor. In other words, people are motivated to act in a certain direction when they have something to gain out of it. The majority, if not all, of human actions, focuses on individual interest and seeks to provide benefit to other people. Care for the interests of human beings, consequently, gets more emphasis than the interests of animals in contemporary society. However, in considering the numerous concepts established by Kant, such as the faculty of desire, the theory of morality, and the categorical imperative, one can postulate that there should be a balance between the interests of animals and humans.
In looking at pleasure and displeasure in animals, one can argue that people have an entitlement to perceive non-rational creatures as living things. It is important to note that according to the Kantian approach, some animals undertake activities that bear resemblances to human actions. For example, Newton postulates that “a beaver constructs a dwelling for itself, or a bird prepares its nest in anticipation of a coming storm” (519). From some of the actions that animals undertake, people can conclude that they generate things according to representation implying that creatures have a faculty of desire just like individuals. The Kantian approach defines life through desire; hence people should not have a preference for care when it comes to themselves or animals. Since Kant ascribes life to animals, it means that he already assigned pleasure and discontentment tendencies to them. Like humans, animals have a consciousness of representation and their living power. In their desire to survive, animals maintain themselves as species or individuals. Although animals do not have cognitive judgments, they maintain themselves and can become aware.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
To comprehend the Kantian justification of rational beings and the value of nature, individuals must deliberate on the concepts of end and will. In his explanation, Kant asserted that things in nature work per the laws or principles implying that the doer has a will (Tonetto 520). For one to derive actions from laws, then they will be projected as a practical reason to perform a deed. For example, animals such as dogs can recognize danger allowing them to “reason” on how to escape from the vulnerability. Animals do not have strong cognition but they follow their inclinations and desires in acting, for instance, eating, reproducing, and avoiding harm. Animals do not act based on reason per se like humans (Newton 86). Regarding practical reason and the categorical imperative, Kant holds that the will of animals has an end to itself (Tonetto 521). Newton notes that rational beings ascribe to the notion that they must handle themselves and others as ends translating to a kingdom. The concept implies that everything in the kingdom has a price or an end. Although Kant claims that people do not have a direct duty to animals, the point is that humans have an “amphiboly in moral concepts of reflection” (Tonetto 523). Animals have relationships with individuals’ rights and interests, hence the need to have a duty to them. Although people should people’s interests favor humans, individuals have a right to ensure they do not mistreat animals.
Considering the Kantian approach to the issue of conflict between the interests of human beings and the interests of animals, the categorical imperative emphasizes rational thinking before taking action. If the action aims at achieving a moral end, the issue of interest does not matter. Kantian approach, in this case, neither considers the interests of humans nor the interests of animals, but whether the action fulfills moral duty (Khalid 85). If an action does not fulfill a moral duty, even if it serves the interests of humans, then one should not do it. For instance, people may think of clearing a forest to settle the human population at the expense of animals. This action seems to serve human interests over those of animals living in the forest. Considering Kantian theory of morality, clearing forests amounts to destroying nature, which affects the interests of animals in the short term, but eventually, human interests are also affected negatively. Since the conservation of nature is part of moral duty, one should not destroy nature in favor of the interests of humans. In view of the Kantian approach, individual actions should be based on fulfillment of moral duty rather than consequences. In this regard, humans have a moral duty to protect animals suggesting they should care but it does not mean that they should equate their interests to those of creatures.
The Kantian approach provides rational guidance on people’s actions. This theory suggests that people should think of their actions in such a way that it would be acceptable if everyone in the world does the same (Stern 87). When one cares more about human interests than the interests of animals, then such care should be aligned with the categorical imperative. For instance, since clearing a thousand hectares of forest would facilitate settling a sizeable population, what if the same action is adopted as a policy across the world? Can one stand to see forests across the world cleared in favor of the short-term interests of people? If the answer is no, then that action is bad, and caring more about the interests of humans than the welfare of animals becomes morally unacceptable). The main issue here is that the decision to compromise moral standards or neglect moral duty for the interest of a handful of individuals is not morally right. To some extent, the interests of animals are important just as the interests of humans, and both should be accorded equal consideration. In looking at rational guidance, there does not exist a hollow in how people act since collectively, the interests of humans and animals are equal.
The Kantian approach provides the concept of basic ideas as a guide to rational actions. This concept entails the command that one should not do what one cannot allow any other person to do. If one thinks of taking an action that compromises the interests of animals in favor of the interests of humans, one should first think about whether one can allow other people to do the same under the same circumstance. This aspect allows one to think over their choices and reflect on the consequences if other people decide to do the same (Stern 102). If one cannot allow another person to do the action, then, the deed is wrong and one should take an alternative measure. Regarding this principle, there are times one should accord an equal measure of care toward both animals and humans. The underlying view in this command is that both humans and animals are important.
Caring more about the interests of humans than the welfare of animals conflicts with the moral detail under the Kantian principle. The moral detail of the Kantian approach depicts the factor of selfishness whenever individuals think of taking an action (Khalid et al. 82). In most cases, people consider selfish gain as the result of an action, instead of looking at the bigger picture. For instance, if one considers an action just because he benefits from it at the expense of animals, then such an action is wrong. One should first view the action as the maxim that everyone else would adopt in a similar situation (Stern 95). For example, a person may decide to utilize his entire land for farming without caring for animals on his farm. The argument may be that utilizing the entire land serves his interest over the interest of animals. What if all other people take such a decision? In this case, animals may become instinctual, just for the selfish interests of people. The concept of moral detail, therefore, commands that one should set aside a space for animals, hence balancing the interests of humans with those of animals.
People should consider the concept of moral worth when doing something. Tonetto notes that the moral actions of humans should peg on what they intend to attain (520). People, what they do should consider the implications of their actions and morality. For instance, one should ask themselves, is mistreating animals morally right? Of course, it is wrong since these animals feel pain. One’s action is not judged by the outcome but by the motivation behind the action. Considering this aspect, one should not consider whether to care more about the welfare of humans or the interests of animals, but the moral worth of his actions. For instance, one may acquire a huge sum of money through a lottery and decides to give to charity just to earn respect and recognition, instead of donating the money towards nature conservation. In this action, giving to charity is a noble thing. However, the motivation is wrong since the giver wanted to gain recognition. He did not take giving as a moral duty but as a channel for selfish interests, hence abandoning conservation efforts. He chose to focus on the interests of humans instead of animals, which would be achieved through conservation efforts just because such action would not earn him respect.
Conclusively, both human interests and animal interests should form part of people’s concerns. The decision on what to give higher priority between the two choices should be based on moral duty rather than selfish gain. Kantian approach to issues seeks to challenge people’s actions and to excite rational thinking. This theorist does not look at the consequences of actions but seeks to judge actions from a moral point of view. If a person’s decision is not guided by a sense of moral duty, then the decision is wrong despite having a pleasant outcome from the surface. In a nutshell, caring more about the interests of humans than the welfare of animals does not matter, but the moral value of the decision is what matters.
Works Cited
- Khalid, Khalizani, et al. “A structural Approach to Ethical Reasoning: The Integration of Moral Philosophy.” Academy of Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, 2017, pp. 81-113.
- Newton, Alexandra. “Kant on Animals and Human Pleasure.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47, no. 4, 2016, pp. 518-540.
- Stern, Robert. Kantian Ethics: Value, Agency, And Obligation. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Tonetto, Milene Consenso. “Kant’s Concept of Indirect Duties and Environmental Ethics.” An International Journal for Moral Philosophy, Vol. 16, no. 3, 2017, pp. 519-532.
Stuck on your essay?
