Do you agree with the Kantian anthropocentric view on the treatment of animals? Why, or why not?
Nowadays more and more talk about animals’ right. We start to care about how they will feel. But someone may think that do animals have their rights?
Kant viewed rationality as the basis for being a moral patient—one due moral consideration—he believed that animals have no moral rights. Also animals are not self-conscious rational agents capable of forming moral law, and are the merely as a means to our end, they are not part of the moral kingdom. Kant thinks that although animals are not part of the moral law and we do not have any duties towards animals, we still should not being cruel to them and being kind to them, because that is about our character in the society and treat our human beings in a human way.
I don’t agree all of Kantian anthropocentric view on the treatment of animals. Although Kant thinks that they are not part of moral laws, they still had their own sentience. I would like to narrate why I don’t agree Kant view in fill ways.
Frist, we should not speciesism. Speciesism is wrong. Speciesism is meaning a prejudice for one’s own species and against other species. Animals are part of our earth; they are one of the species in the world. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) argued in Discourse on Inequality (1754) for the inclusion of animals in natural law on the grounds of sentience. "By this method also we put an end to the time-honored disputes concerning the participation of animals in natural law: for it is clear that, being destitute of intelligence and liberty, they cannot recognize that law; as they partake, however, in some measure of our nature, in consequence of the sensibility with which they are endowed, they ought to partake of natural right; so that mankind is subjected to a kind of obligation even toward the brutes.”1 Animals have their own feeling, although we cannot understand all of them. They can feel pain. They can...