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
This is probably not the best place to be asking this question. Maybe try in r/Philosophy or r/AskPhilosophy. I don’t think most people here are well versed with Kant’s work or philosophy in general.
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.
This is probably not the best place to be asking this question. Maybe try in r/Philosophy or r/AskPhilosophy. I don’t think most people here are well versed with Kant’s work or philosophy in general.
[removed]
[removed]
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.
because you clearly have an essay due and didn’t do the reading. maybe be a better student in the future.
Also there really is no eli5 answer possible – The dude literally caused an entire rift in the field to the point ‘kantian and not kantian’ is a valid way to describe an entire profession
because you clearly have an essay due and didn’t do the reading. maybe be a better student in the future.
Also there really is no eli5 answer possible – The dude literally caused an entire rift in the field to the point ‘kantian and not kantian’ is a valid way to describe an entire profession
I think it boils down to the problem of freedom. As I understand it, freedom comes from the fact that rationality is not based on the noumena, knowledge is. Rationality tries to go beyond the noumena, so it’s not tied to the phenomenic world, which is causal. With causality you cannot have freedom, so the trascendental aesthetic and the trascendental analytic is tied by it’s own way to operate. But trascendental dialectic is applying categories to themselves, not to the noumena, and so you are not bound by it and you are free of the causality. That’s why humans are free moral agents, and animals are not, animals can’t get to this point, so are tied by causality.
I hope this helps, English is not my native language and this is a complicated topic, also this is my take on the subject and I can be mistaken
I think it boils down to the problem of freedom. As I understand it, freedom comes from the fact that rationality is not based on the noumena, knowledge is. Rationality tries to go beyond the noumena, so it’s not tied to the phenomenic world, which is causal. With causality you cannot have freedom, so the trascendental aesthetic and the trascendental analytic is tied by it’s own way to operate. But trascendental dialectic is applying categories to themselves, not to the noumena, and so you are not bound by it and you are free of the causality. That’s why humans are free moral agents, and animals are not, animals can’t get to this point, so are tied by causality.
I hope this helps, English is not my native language and this is a complicated topic, also this is my take on the subject and I can be mistaken
Latest Answers