Kant needs to check his facts because he will find that he has none

Kant has an interesting mixture of compassion for animals and yet a nonchalant disregard for their worth as inhabitants of the planet. Kant maintains that only humans have intrinsic moral worth. I find it interesting that he forms a foundation on this statement from which his proceeding argument stems. Who says that animals don't have intrinsic moral worth? Where is the proof? Kant carries on claiming that it is the ability to rationalize that gives humans the upper hand on animals. Wow! How bold.

Singer supports my view in asking what the relevance of thinking/rationalizing is in determining worth. Kant's defense to why we can't apply this notion to human beings who are unable to rationalize (mentally handicapped, children, and the comatose) is that they have the capacity/potential for rationality even if it is never exhibited. Well, it's a good thing that there is the rest of humanity to speak for those humans who cannot speak for themselves. There is no one to speak for the animals, so people like Kent take it upon themselves to call animals unworthy of such defenses. Why is it unfair to take advantage of an isolated defect (Singer,81) but taking advantage of a general limitation (Singer,81) like animals is permissible? Kant asserts that it boils down to them being in the human category. This seems to be his only resolution for everything. That is not proof! That is an easy excuse for not having an answer.

I appreciate Kant's theory that animals should be treated well unless they have to be killed for food or for a "useful purpose" and that otherwise, for the most part, cruelty of any kind to animals is wrong and should not be permitted. I accept the reality that people will never stop eating meat (at least I believe this) and that's something I have to deal with. In light of this I say "kill them fast and keep it as painless as possible for the animals". So I agree with him in this aspect. Avoid suffering where it can be avoided. I do not, however, thing it is right to kill them. I would prefer that meat was not eaten.

Kant continues to insult the animals by saying that our duties to animals are indirect duties to humans. So hurting and animal impinges on the moral character of the "hurter" and thus makes them a danger or a weak link to the rest of mankind. I believe that this is true. I believe that anyone capable of hurting or killing an animal is capable of being a threat to humanity. I do not, however, support his view that this if the ONLY reason to be good to animals. He is consequently lowering the status of other species by raising our own above them all. And, he does this with no authority and no real facts to back up his theory other than "because I said so", and that is not enough. I think Kant needs to check his facts and realize that he doesn't have any.