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 would be the alternative? What is the basis for moral consideration as far as human action is concerned (generally what Kant focuses on).
Is there moral consideration for rocks? how about bacteria? how about plants? how about trees? how about insects? how about jellyfish? how about monkeys?
You are not required to fully accept Kant’s philosophy. It is simply to understand what basis he constructs it from. And starting and ending with humans is not necessarily controversial.
Latest Answers