Kant is very controversial for his views on animal ethics. He states that since animals aren’t rational so they don’t deserve direct moral consideration, and committing a cruel act to an animal is only bad in so far as it is bad for yourself. How does having a capacity for rationality make you worthy of moral consideration. More importantly why does Kant make the argument that rationality is the basis of moral consideration. I simply don’t get it.
In: 8
What are these “rational persons” of which Kant speaks?
Seriously, very few, if any, people are consistently rational. More than a few are apparently incapable of being rational. Most people don’t lead a life, they follow one around about two seconds behind, rationalizing whatever they just instinctively did.
Latest Answers