Philosophy and Animals

  • Overview
  • More information
  • Detailed discussion
  • Related information

Brief Summary of Philosophy and Animals
Alissa Branham (2005)


By Jebulon (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

Gimmicky beast rights and animal welfare advocates oft make utilize of philosophers in the joint and advancement of their movement. Sometimes a philosopher is merely trotted out for perfunctory abuse because of his fauna-unfriendly philosophical views (that philosopher unremarkably beingness the seventeenth-century philosopher René Descartes). This is non always birthday unfair, particularly in Descartes' case, as his view that animals are incapable of feeling hurting strikes most today as evidently absurd, and his indifferent depictions of experimentations upon still living animals strike most equally horrifying.

The works of Immanuel Kant (an eighteenth-century philosopher) and John Stuart Mill (a nineteenth-century philosopher) accept been used more substantively in animal advocacy movements, though. John Stuart Manufacturing plant's philosophy (utilitarianism) was actually already fairly animal-friendly. He believed that in whatever given situation the right activeness would be the action that tended to minimize the suffering and hurting, and maximize the pleasure and happiness, of all interested parties. He further idea that the suffering, pain, pleasure and happiness of animals should be included in this calculus. Peter Singer's Animal Liberation is a contemporary discussion of how such a commonsensical philosophy should impact our treatment of animals.

Another philosopher often discussed within creature advocacy movements is Immanuel Kant. Kant himself did not think that nosotros had any direct ethical duties to animals. He believed that the only reason we should avert being savage to animals is that in doing so we might develop cruel habits that we would inflict on other people. Co-ordinate to Kant, we merely owe ethical duties to rational beings, and animals are non included in that group. Still, animal rights advocates have been attracted to Kant's philosophy for many reasons. I reason is that in Kant's philosophy each individual to whom we do owe direct ethical duties tin can never be sacrificed to the happiness of others, no matter how much happiness might upshot. Kant posited that rational beings have inviolable rights, owed to them considering of their rational nature, and that each must be treated equally an end in herself. So, while in utilitarianism the right thing to do, that action which maximizes happiness, might involve inflicting pain on someone, in Kant's philosophy that would never be adequate. Animal rights advocates often fence that animals besides have these sort of rights, and that they should never be sacrificed under the auspices of the greater good, either as food or equally the subjects of medical experimentation.

Overview of Animals and Philosophy
Alissa Branham (2005)

     While Western philosophy has not historically been concerned with beast rights or animal welfare, it has more recently become an important part of animal advocacy conversations and movements.  The 3 historical philosophers that are most discussed are René Descartes, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.  While contemporary animal advocates have voiced concerns with the ways in which each of these figures dealt with animals in their works, many advocates have likewise found these thinkers to be helpful in defining our ethical relationship to animals.  In this overview of the topic, the views of each of these thinkers and their place in gimmicky animate being welfare and rights movements volition be briefly prepare out.

René Descartes (1596-1650)
It is quite common in the writings of an creature rights thinker for Descartes' views on animals to exist counterposed to their own. That is to say, Descartes is almost invariably ready as a philosophical villain in discussions of animal rights--and understandably and so. Descartes' committed views on philosophy of mind left him with some very unintuitive, and some might say disturbing, views on animals.
Descartes was a dualist, which is to say, he believed that humans are equanimous of two separate substances: mind and body .  Sensations, like the awareness of pain, are simply possible in beings that are composed of both listen and body because sensations emerge from the commingling of these ii substances. Animals, co-ordinate to Descartes, are, however, composed of simply ane of the two substances: body. Hence animals are sophisticated machines that are capable of making the physical motions and grimaces that would in humans accompany the sensation of pain; merely, possessing no minds themselves, animals are incapable of possessing the accompanying sensation.
While it does not necessarily follow from the proposition that animals cannot experience pain and do not possess minds that we take no upstanding duties to them, it does brand for a difficult starting position.  For example, to go along to maintain that one's handling of animals is ethically constrained, one might argue that while beating a dog does not hurt the dog, it is unethical to practice then considering it makes one more likely to beat a person. The obvious objection, nevertheless, is that if neither a canis familiaris nor a rug has any sensation, then chirapsia a dog should be no more than likely to desensitize one to human pain than would beating a carpeting to get the dust out of it.  After all, if you are non inflicting pain on the dog, how could beating it be more likely to crusade you to injure another person than chopping downward a tree or skipping a stone beyond water? Consequently, if one adopts the philosophy of mind that Descartes did, information technology seems specially difficult to take effect with acts upon animals such equally scientific experimentation—acts that are done without cruelty and for (arguably at to the lowest degree) good purpose.  And indeed, Descartes did not have outcome with scientific experimentation on animals and even vividly depicts vivisection in his piece of work.

Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
Kantian ethical philosophy has proven attractive to many animal rights advocates, in large part because his ethical theory incorporates the thought that ethical duties owed to a person are accented ; they cannot be overridden or dismissed based on other circumstances and considerations.  Animal rights advocates notice this fashion of thinking about ethical obligations attractive considering while many people concord that we have duties and obligations of some sort to animals, they think that these duties can be trumped by other considerations.  For case, while many people think it is wrong to injure animals, they concede that hurting animals should be permitted under sure circumstances. For example, they might think that information technology is permissible to hurt them for the sake of making clothing and shoes, or at the very least, it is permissible to hurt them to plough them into food or to use them to find cures for human diseases. To establish that animals have inviolable rights would hence offering a great deal of protection to animals, and bar such concessions.
Kant himself, withal, did not include animals amongst those beings that had these sorts of inviolable rights. He did not therefore maintain that we take any straight upstanding duties to animals.  Kant held that the basis of such ethical duties was respect for heightened cerebral capabilities—capabilities which animals, he held, do not possess.  Some narrate this heightened cognitive capability as self-consciousness.  Current beast rights thinker Steven Wise, responding to Kant, argues that some animals exercise have the level of cognitive ability that Kant demands, and Wise claims that gimmicky science can help u.s. to identify which animals those are. In this mode, Wise hopes to plant that there are some animals to whom nosotros do have direct upstanding duties.
It should exist noted, that while Kant did not believe that we owed ethical duties to animals, he did believe that there are ethical restraints on our treatment of animals based on our upstanding duties to ourselves. Granting that animals are capable of feeling pain, and hence are qualitatively unlike from inanimate objects like rugs, Kant had more resources for making such an argument than a Cartesian would take. Kant argued that we should not be barbarous to animals because desensitizing ourselves to causing them pain could make the states more insensitive and more likely to inflict hurting on other people.

John Stuart Factory (1806-1873)
John Stuart Mill was a utilitarian.  He believed that upstanding acts are those acts that tend to minimize pain and maximize pleasure.  Animals, according to Mill, can feel both pain and pleasure and so they should be taken into consideration in all ethical decisions.  While the further claim that humans are capable of experiencing higher pleasures can skew calculations in their favor, Mill'south philosophy is still viewed past brute advocates as a particularly promising first step.  Peter Vocalizer, a contemporary philosopher that advocates ethical treatment of animals, famously expounded on the identify of animals within a utilitarian framework in his book Animal Liberation .  While both Manufacturing plant and Singer would agree that it tin can be ethically permissible to inflict impairment on animals if enough overall happiness would tend to effect from that act, Vocalizer adamantly maintains that many of the ways we use animals today are not ethically permissible under utilitarianism given the triviality of the pleasance attained and the smashing magnitude of the suffering endured.