The Influence Of Kant On Animal Rights

There are a variety of different views on how animals should be treated and what rights they deserve if any. Some align themselves with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, whose philosophy in regards to animals derives from a very human centric point of view. Kant argues that because non-human animals aren’t rational or self-conscious beings, they aren’t ends-in-themselves and as such don’t need to have rights. This may surprise some due to his history of valuing the individual’s life rather than a collective group’s life, essentially saying that one life isn’t more important than another. However this only applies to human life, according to Kant animals only have a value because they help our morality mature. Kant makes the argument that humans have an indirect duty to animals, saying we shouldn’t treat them poorly, but only because if we do abuse them we won’t
Additionally unlike Kant, Singer proclaims that animals should be given rights as they are sentient and as such can feel pain. This can be considered as an alignment with utilitarianism because, according to Singer, of its focus on maximising happiness for every living being, including animals. Singer is of the opinion that animals should be liberated similarly to how minorities and females experienced their own liberation movements. If one doesn’t grant animals equal consideration, then according to Singer, they’re guilty of something he calls “Speciesism”, which is essentially a prejudice against animals which assumes that humans are superior to all other living beings. I find this term to be a little ridiculous and somewhat offensive. I understand what he’s saying, but I don’t think that racism or sexism can be equated to treating animals poorly, which it automatically does by giving it an “-ism” suffix. At any rate, those who don’t fully agree with Singer may side with the American philosopher, Tom