Precis 6 - Precis 6 The thought of cruelty to animals is in...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Precis 6 The thought of cruelty to animals is in some minds, more harmful to humans than the actually animal. Absurd? Yes. This idea is clearly stated that because animals have no moral of importance, the human-caused cruelty is far more of a consequence which overall makes the cruelty wrongful. A legal scholar by the name of Louis Schwartz stated that the concern with animal cruelty is that although animals are being slaughtered for food, the effects that has on humans creates ultimate sympathy for the slaughtered animals. Does this still sound insane? I agree that it does. More absurdly, Immanuel Kant (a philosopher) states that we have no moral obligation towards animals. The ultimate morality principle that applies only to humans, also known as the Categorical Imperative, discards any responsibilities for animals. Kant claims that animals are not self-conscious and are ultimately set up for death due to humans. Kant claims that humans predetermine the life of animals, which ultimately leads to Kant’s beliefs of right and wrong. Kant says that cruelty to animals is wrong only on the basis that any cruelty that man does to
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/03/2008 for the course PHIL 1000 taught by Professor Heathwood, during the Spring '07 term at Colorado.

Page1 / 2

Precis 6 - Precis 6 The thought of cruelty to animals is in...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online