Phl 118, Exam #3 Pg.275-276
Phl 118, Exam #3 Pg.275-276 PHL 118
Popular in moral problems
Popular in PHIL-Philosophy
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Jalena Williams on Thursday March 3, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PHL 118 at Central Michigan University taught by Mark Shelton in Winter 2016. Since its upload, it has received 20 views. For similar materials see moral problems in PHIL-Philosophy at Central Michigan University.
Reviews for Phl 118, Exam #3 Pg.275-276
No all-nighter needed with these notes...Thank you!!!
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/03/16
Our Duties to Animals Immanuel Kant Believes we have no direct duty to animals since they have no conscious. Our duties to animals is only the result of an indirect duty to human beings. We shouldn’t be cruel to animals because this tends to produce cruelty to humans. Acts of animals are analogous to acts of humans. If a dog has served his master long and faithfully, his service on the analogous of human service, deserves a reward. When the dog grows too old to serve, his master ought to keep him until he dies. We have duties to animals because we cultivate the corresponding duties to human beings. If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog because the dog cannot judge. He fails in his duty as a human, his act is inhuman and damages himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. In some instances animals are regarded as man’s instruments. Ex. Researchers who use animals for their experiments. Our duty to animals is an indirect duty to mankind. Class Notes Kant All duties towards animals are indirect duties. Direct duties= duties to which one if bound by the will of a rational being. Indirect duties= duties to which one is bound toward nonrational beings. Kant’s theory is somewhat compatible with all of the views we have discussed so far. Example of a direct duty: contract Duty doesn’t only come about as a result of having agreed upon something. Indirect duty occurs because you have to add a different kind of duty because animals are not rational beings. Humans have pain in common with animals. The rationality in an instance of pain a human experiences vs. pain an animal experiences is the difference in response. Knee Injury Example: The person may need assistance or motivation. A person may scream or say stop and the trainer would have to stop They can come to a mutual understanding that they need to work together because it will make that human physically better There is a mutual obligation and it’s the human’s decision. They have the option of refusing treatment Veterinarian Example: The vet tries to treat the animal. It squeals and attempts to get away. The animal doesn’t have the right to decide if they receive the treatment. If this is something that will be good for the dog as humans it is our call and not the dog. The dog cannot make that decision since it isn’t a rational being. There are manifestations of animal nature that are analogous to human nature. Aspects of human nature can be similar to humans. There is something we have to have respect for because we have respect for because we have respect for human nature. Utilitarianism: It is obvious that animals experience pain and pleasure just as we do Animals can be transformed by the rationality that we possess. We have to count that Some differences will occur due to our rationality. Strong Rights: The right to life does not depend on purely being a rational being. The grounds is the same so how can the duty be different Weak Rights: Most of the time we are talking about analogy and similarity. The difference in rationality makes the duty to animals different from humans. Things that we can get from Kant’s views that are different from the other views? Ex. The dog has worked for you all their life so you have to take care of the dog until it dies. Kant applies retirement to the dog’s work which is something that would be attributed to humans. Gratitude for animals doesn’t correspond with any of the other theories. Gratitude does have to occur at that very moment which makes it different from a right. The nature of the animal matters in regards to what we are capable of doing with them. Kant suggests that you owe something to yourself to have an indirect duty. If a person is cruel to an animal they’ll become cruel to people. This idea is hard to prove and is not always true. It is thought to be a reflection of the kind of person someone is You should be a better person, which creates an obligation to act rationally towards animals. Nonrational beings: Children Duties are still direct because they will become rational beings. Think about a very young child: It becomes you call when making decisions because they are too young to make a decision themselves rationally. Ex. A child with an incurable disease The treatment isn’t available. Doctors offer the parents an experimental treatment which is quite gruesome. Many parents think they should do it because it may help someone’s child in the future. Someone may argue that we should be able to experiment on animals since we experiment on children who are considered to be nonrational beings. However, a line must be drawn. We have no grounds to put a child or animal through torture during experimentation. Not utilitarian or rights thinking.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'