Animal rights: we have a duty to protect animals

By Nzau Musau

In his moral philosophy, German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s stated that rational beings alone have moral worth but that the latter have an indirect duty to observe and protect animal rights.

Kant’s assertion is founded on his delicate distinction between the aspects of means and end which he describes in his second formulation of the categorical imperative of humanity as an end in it. To him, that which serves the will as the objective ground of its self determination is the end and this holds for all rational beings. On the contrary, that those whose grounds for action presents only a probability of effect being the end is the means. This according to Kant accounts for all non rational beings.

Serving the will, man’s existence is therefore of absolute worth and distinctive of other beings. Being an end in himself man can therefore be a source of a possible categorical imperative in the form of practical laws. This is not possible in other non rational beings who have conditional worth and therefore only means to an end. For example, gold has no value apart from that which is assigned by human beings. If what is assigned by human beings is taken away from them, they become just like any other pebbles about the ground. Moreover, they are used as means to man’s ends.

Man therefore possessing this uniqueness as a rational being has the moral worth drawn from his autonomous nature. But since the other non rational beings like animals are depended on him as the end, man therefore has an automatic duty to them. This duty, as can be inferred from this relationship is not a direct one but a necessary one. The very nature of animals, Kant seems to think, is serving to the man’s end. He sees animal nature as analogous to human nature so that when we are doing our indirect duty to them, we are indirectly serving our ends.

In doing our duties to animals, we are cultivating same values to do similar duties to men and therefore serving our ends. We are therefore called upon to be kind to animals, to show some humanness in dealing with them since we cannot divorce ourselves from our very nature when dealing with them. When we do so and act “beastly” we are deviating from our moral responsibilities. In fact, it is a contradiction of sorts to treat animals in a different way than we would treat them if they were humans. We must therefore be kind to both ourselves and animals.

Our duty however serves to the extent that they serve our ends. This does not mean when animals cease to be of material value; for example when an ass gets old to pull weights, we shoot it or let it die. It is of immense value to human end to treat it kinder in its last days as this helps us to develop tender feelings towards our aged. It serves us well to remain virtuous. Because of this, any type of cruelty towards animals for the sake of it or for sport cannot be permitted. Justifiable cruelty like animal experimentation can however be allowed since over ally it serves man’s ends.

Kant’s conception of men and animals is pretty well balanced one which grants man some rights over animal but takes them through the back door. It nevertheless ignores the sentient aspect of animals as possessing fears, anxieties, needs and in sum total, interests. This is however taken care of through the balance he creates between the rational and non rational beings.

How about you give a care to the animals during these festive season?