Kant – Indirect Duty

The second version of the categorical imperative, the formula of humanity or ends, provides a way into Kant’s attitude to the environment.

“Act in a way as you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, as always an end and never as a means only.” Kant

This implies animals and nature can be treated as means as they are mere things – ‘things’ because they are not rational agents, which Kant closely connects to the idea of self-consciousness:

“The fact that the human being can have an ‘I’ in his representation raises him infinitely above all living beings on earth. Because of this he is a person…i.e., through rank and dignity entirely different being from things, such as irrational animals, with which one can do as one likes”

Therefore “we have no immediate duties towards animals; our duties towards them are indirect duties towards humanity.”

• Despite this dim view of animals, Kant did not think they could be abused – he disapproved of blood sports, vivisections should not be carried out “for the sake of mere speculation” or if “the end can be achieved in other ways”; when animals are killed it should be quick and painless; animals should not be overworked; animals who have served a family well should be able to live out their days as “if they are members of the household”

• What grounding do these duties have if animals are mere things?
Kant thinks there is a link between how humans treat animals and how they treat each other, “tenderness shown to animals is subsequently transferred to man.” He also thought that unkindness towards animals may translate into unkindness to man “in England no butcher, surgeon or doctor ever serves on the twelve-man jury because they are already inured to death.”

• Recently some philosophers have tried to find deeper ground for duties towards animals… they rely on passages such as “Any action whereby we may torment animals or let them suffer distress, or otherwise treat them without love, is demeaning to ourselves.”

• According to Allen Wood the basis of kindness to animals is the duties we owe ourselves:

“By grounding duties regarding non rational nature in our duty to promote our own moral perfection, Kant is saying that whatever our other aims or our happiness may consist in, we do not have a good will unless we show concern for the welfare of non rational beings and value natural beauty for its own sake”

“Kant’s view on the wrongness of abusing animals and nature seems to miss the point”- if you torture a gorilla, the wrong is being done to the gorilla not to yourself! The problem of rational agents still remains.”

• Recent philosophers in the ‘Kantian Tradition’ have sought to rectify this! It is difficult to argue that animals are rational in Kant’s sense. Another approach is to distinguish between the source and content of values -rational agents are the source of value but they do not exhaust the content of value.

Christine Korgsaard (2005) gives a Kantian version of such an argument:

• Rational agents legislate value, and value arises because rational agents are self-valuing legislators.

• Are humans obliged to legislate for animals and the environment? Korgsaard says yes! Why?

1. Humans, as well as being rational agents, are also animals and have animal natures – “our love of eating and drinking and sex and playing: our curiosity, our capacity for simple physical pleasure; our objection to injury and our terror of physical mutilation, pain and loss of control.” Therefore when we legislate we legislate for our rational and animal nature and thereby should include animals that are not rational in our decisions.

2. Even when we are legislating the value of human goods we are legislating a principle which confers value on all those creatures who pursue their own goods:

“In taking ourselves to be an end in ourselves we legislate that the natural good of a creature that matters to itself is the source of normative claims. Animal nature is an end-in-itself because our own legislation makes it so. And that is why we duties to animals.”

? Summary:

Problems

• X is good for creature Y.
• X is good

Does this follow?

• Are we compelled to help animals?