Welcome to visit ACADEMIC MONTHLY,Today is

Volume 52 Issue 8
October 2020
Article Contents

Citation: Huiyong ZHANG. On Kantian Deontological Theories in Animal Ethics[J]. Academic Monthly, 2020, 52(8): 56-66, 82. shu

On Kantian Deontological Theories in Animal Ethics

  • Kant’s view on animals holds that human beings have no direct duties to animals, because they have no rational natures and cannot be persons, but human beings have duties regarding them, because these duties are necessary for human beings to cultivate their virtues. This view is demonstrated by many commenters as logocentrism, anthropocentrism and speciesism. In order to response these objections, Wood and Korsgaard attempt to construct Kantian direct duties to animals by amending Kant’s concepts such as reason, person and end in itself, while O’Neill, Denis, Altman and Kain try to defend Kant’s indirect duties regarding animals through emphasizing Kant’s concepts such as Humanity, moral feeling and moral anthropology. This article will point out that these commenters share a questionable premise, that is, it is incompatible between direct and indirect duties, and argues that Kant’s concept of amphiboly can help us to connect these two kinds of duties, which is also helpful for us to construct modern animal ethics.
  • 加载中

Article Metrics

Article views: 2342 Times PDF downloads: 20 Times Cited by: 0 Times

Metrics
  • PDF Downloads(20)
  • Abstract views(2342)
  • HTML views(503)
  • Latest
  • Most Read
  • Most Cited
        通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
        • 1. 

          沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

        1. 本站搜索
        2. 百度学术搜索
        3. 万方数据库搜索
        4. CNKI搜索

        On Kantian Deontological Theories in Animal Ethics

        • Department of Philosophy at Xiamen University, Xiamen Fujian 361005

        Abstract: Kant’s view on animals holds that human beings have no direct duties to animals, because they have no rational natures and cannot be persons, but human beings have duties regarding them, because these duties are necessary for human beings to cultivate their virtues. This view is demonstrated by many commenters as logocentrism, anthropocentrism and speciesism. In order to response these objections, Wood and Korsgaard attempt to construct Kantian direct duties to animals by amending Kant’s concepts such as reason, person and end in itself, while O’Neill, Denis, Altman and Kain try to defend Kant’s indirect duties regarding animals through emphasizing Kant’s concepts such as Humanity, moral feeling and moral anthropology. This article will point out that these commenters share a questionable premise, that is, it is incompatible between direct and indirect duties, and argues that Kant’s concept of amphiboly can help us to connect these two kinds of duties, which is also helpful for us to construct modern animal ethics.

          HTML

        目录

        /

        DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
        Return