Ian Smith

Jason Christopher Jenson

Phil-1120-004
Critique on Kants We Have Only Indirect Duties to Animals
If Immanuel Kant were to say that animals are merely instruments to be used by
humanity, and they should not be treated equal. I disagree with him. We are all animals after all,
and we can be philosophers as well and challenge why Kants belief is morally wrong. If we
dont, the meaning of philosophy is worthless. We should always challenge accepted beliefs,
especially this one. Every animal plays its part on the Earth in more ways than what most people
could not understand. We need each other to survive, both animals that we as humans are close to
and/or animals that are distant from human relations. They deserve to be treated equal.
Kant argues that animals have no self-conscious and are simply a means to an end, that
end being man itself. Human beings should only be self-serving, this is central to Kants belief.
Otherwise, you arent doing your duty towards humanity if you take the time to defend an animal
that displays no sympathy towards a human being. It all comes down to this, if you think you
have a duty to help any other common animal, you are doing a disservice to mankind and are
holding humanities progress back.
Kant also argues, animals that retain loyalty to human beings can be used as tools to
further progress humanitys survival. Putting down the loyal animal after it can no longer give
surface to its master, the master is in the right because the animal doesnt understand the concept,
and thus the master does not fail in his/her duties to the animal. However, the act is inhumane
because you would not do this to your fellow man. We develop feelings for animals after we

come in contact with them and observe them; as a result, we develop more sympathy for
ourselves.
Kant may also have taken this into consideration. Humans with pets show positive
feelings for their companions and give them feelings of love. But we cant forget that many
animals are used for the purpose of consumption. Other animals are used for live experiments
that progress our understanding of the universe and how we can understand our many curiosities
of the universe. Are the butchers and scientists put on trial for those acts of cruelty? No, and they
shouldnt, because the cruelty is justified for the benefit of mankind.
Kant quotes, We have no direct duties. Animals are not self-conscious and are there
merely as a means to an end. That end is man. (Methuen, Kant 1932) Kant makes it clear that he
believes that Animals are not self-conscious and that they are merely a means to an end. That
animals are otherwise worthless for the exception of the loyal ones. We should primarily focus
on our own species, if not, youre not doing your duty for the human race. I want to criticize this
theory that Kant has brought forth. Its been reportedly observed that animals are self-conscious
and they possess intelligence of their own. They may not be on the same level of intelligence that
humans have developed in the past thousands of years. But they are certainly more intelligent
than what we make them out to be. If an animal shows clear signs of pain or affection for
another, they do in fact retain a self-conscious. On the other hand, you could argue that insects do
not store a self-conscious; the only drive they have in life is instinct. Its not widely known
whether they do or not, but this is more of a topic that scientists have more credibility in putting
forth the effort in, unlike philosophers.
Kant only wants to find the animals that will retain loyalty to the human cause, otherwise
we have no use for animals that dont. While some animals have been domesticated to serve

humans whether for work or comfort, you cant deny that every animal plays a key part in the
balance of life on Earth. Treating animals as equal could also benefit us as a species. For
example, if we managed to treat animals fairly without cruel intentions we could inveterately
teach ourselves the importance of treating humans equally. It can also come down to whats
morally the right thing to do, and you cant deny that humans have feelings towards anything that
is living that we can relate easily to.
Peter Singer quoted If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to
take that suffering into consideration. (Singer, 1974) The important thing to note here is the
treatment of animals. We can relate to animals in many different ways. We may be different
genetically but we each strive to survive in the world and we continue to grow and co-exist with
one another. We should always challenge accepted beliefs, especially this one. Every animal
plays its part on the Earth in more ways than what most people could not understand. We need
each other to survive, both animals that we as humans are close to and/or animals that are distant
from human relations. They should be treated equal. Thats the power of Philosophy.

Reflection: Writing this paper was fun and challenging. I voiced my opinion on what I
believe to be morally right, and that is the fair treatment of animals across the world. I believe
this is important because how we treat animals can be reflected in how we treat each other as
humans. Also, treating animals humanely is morally the right thing to do.

Kant, Methuen, Pojman, Vaughn (1932) We Have Only Indirect Duties to Animals. from The
moral life: An introductor reader in ethics and literature. NY: Oxford University Press.
(p. 877-888)
Singer, (Summer 1974) All Animals Are Equal from Philosophic Exchange, Vol. 1 No. 5.
Ethics and Moral Problems Case Studies Reading Packet #3
(p. 7)