Kant & Indirect Moral Duty to Animals

[Iwannaplato]

And it's obvious that Kant was speciesist as one of them said. Does that make Kant wrong or does that mean that everyone should have their position? From the little you quoted of them, not so far.

Speciesism-in-general is a derogatory term of favoring one's species and anything goes [up the worst tortures] with other species.

It would include those who view think that but the term does not mean that.

Richard D. Ryder, who coined the term, defined it as "a prejudice or attitude of bias in favour of the interests of members of one's own species and against those of members of other species".

speciesism, in applied ethics and the philosophy of animal rights, the practice of treating members of one species as morally more important than members of other species; also, the belief that this practice is justified

If I simply accept mine or Kant's morality is 'speciesism' that would imply I condone or encourage the arbitrary killing and torture of non-human animals.

No, that is not what the term means or entails.

Yes, people who do that would be in the category, but the category includes, well, all sorts of other attitudes including Kant's.

Just because he can be labelled with this term does not mean he was wrong. As I said earlier the problem with your responses was that it was if there wasn't a moral value difference.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Meanings to words are not carved in stones.

In this case, I would not accept the term Speciesism without the necessary qualifications and preferably I would want to avoid the term and opt for a description rather than merely a specific term.

[Iwannaplato]

Meanings to words are not carved in stones.

Then don't tell people what the words mean. And given the definitions out there, it is not what other people are likely to mean.

In this case, I would not accept the term Speciesism without the necessary qualifications

Sigh. You mean you don't accept common usage and you think other people mean what you mean by the word when they use it.

and preferably I would want to avoid the term and opt for a description rather than merely a specific term.

In this case, or in all cases of using any word? LOL.

You refuse to admit even minor points. It comes off fragile.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Meanings to words are not carved in stones.

Then don't tell people what the words mean. And given the definitions out there, it is not what other people are likely to mean.

In this case, I would not accept the term Speciesism without the necessary qualifications

Sigh. You mean you don't accept common usage and you think other people mean what you mean by the word when they use it.

and preferably I would want to avoid the term and opt for a description rather than merely a specific term.

In this case, or in all cases of using any word? LOL.

You refuse to admit even minor points. It comes off fragile.

Speciesism is not a common term.
There are times where rigor is needed as in this case re speciesism.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant is often charged with "speciesism" as if in some negative light but that is not the case with Kant intention to sideline other species. Where there is a threat to the human species, humanity must be prioritized optimally.
"No man is an island" nor is 'humans are an island' as such humans and others non-human species must live together in complementary and optimally.

It’s true that at points Kant seems to think our capacity to choose to will the moral law sets us above anything else in nature except other rational beings. There is no sense for Kant in which nature or any non-human animals enjoy anything approaching a dignity ‘beyond price’. As he puts it in his Lectures on Ethics (1760-c.1794):

“But so far as animals are concerned, we have no direct duties. Animals… are there merely as means to an end. That end is man.”

Here Kant could be justifiably attacked from, say, an environmentalist perspective, for elevating human beings at the expense of nature. However, here Kant is firmly in the classical liberal tradition in his approach to the natural world.

Although his later works, especially the Critique of Judgement (1790), develop a formidable approach to interpreting nature’s beauty and purpose, Kant is committed to the idea that natural objects are appropriable for the ends determined for them by man and God.
This is not simply some crude speciesism on Kant’s part: he does not simply assert that we are different from the rest of nature because we alone are free to choose, and therefore to enjoy a dignity which sets us apart from the world. Rather, our moral value stems precisely from our capacity to set moral ends for ourselves.
It is the ability to create moral value that’s valuable, not the fact that we belong to a particular species.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/150/Ka ... an_Dignity

Whilst humans do not have direct duties to non-human animals, we must develop strong indirect duties to to them.

[Iwannaplato]

Kant is often charged with "speciesism" as if in some negative light but that is not the case with Kant intention to sideline other species.

So you just invent some random wording that I will be no one used 'intention to sideline¨' And you have the gall to call out Strawman in response to others.

Where there is a threat to the human species, humanity must be prioritized optimally.

So, you justified his speciesism via circular speciesism.

It's not that your position is wrong, it's that you can't even respond to the actual position they have. YOu could simply say, yes, Kant thinks that it is right to prioritize humans and for us to use animals intrumentally. We can try to minimize their suffering and to generally protect the environment, but only because of the value you us. But we get to use them for our purposes even if they must be forced into this.

Racism is treating other humans instrumentally, based on race, in ways that priortize one race over others.

Speciesism does the same with other mammals, for example, based on them not being homo sapians.

It is that kind of ism. But you hear that the word speciesism sounds negative and so you can't acknowledge that it could apply to your Jesus, in a negative light. Well, the people who call him that have different values than you do.

Ah, it's pointless.

And your post was just a mass of unjustifed assertions, circular at best.

[FlashDangerpants]

What is even with this pathological need that VA has to be the only one who is allowed to describe Kant?

[Atla]

What is even with this pathological need that VA has to be the only one who is allowed to describe Kant?

Realistically, there is only one person who should be allowed to describe the second greatest philosopher of all time.