Friday, September 28, 2012
One of the first arguments that Kant makes in his "Groundwork" is that the only true good is good will, no matter whether the outcome of the action is good or bad. My argument (a subject we didn't breech in class, as it is very controversial) presents the following question: if instinct is the "organ" that controls action in animals and reason is the "organ" that controls actions in humans, are animals without reason or moral understanding, and how does the categorical imperative apply to them? Maybe this is a silly question to ponder, but as we have all had our own interactions and experiences with animals, I believe we are all capable of raising our own ideas on the subject. If we think about animals' behaviors as they correspond to the categorical imperative, I believe that an argument can be made that domesticated animals act out of moral duty, because they derive some sense of satisfaction from doing so. For example, my dog is very protective of my little brother, not because she has been trained to be so, but because she has determined for herself that he is important to her and that it is therefore her duty to protect him. I believe some universalization can be drawn from this example, in that if my dog could talk articulate her thoughts via speech perhaps she would purport that it is the universal duty of dogs to protect their owners. In regard to the three formulations of the categorical imperative, I believe that my dog applies as an example because she may be alleged to know for herself what is good/moral to her; she treats the other animals/humans around her as beings with which to coexist and worthy of love, not utility (sure, she uses us as a means to get her food, but she also is protective of us, so that this relationship is two-sided and not in violation of formulation 2); and she acts in accordance with the community (in this case, family) of which she is a member. Perhaps it is a silly thing to apply the categorical imperative to a non-human subject, but I believe this example may expand our understandings of the categorical imperative, by exploring it as it relates to someone else rather than to ourselves. Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think you're right that animals like dogs act with good intentions. Even if a dog causes harm, its reasoning behind the action is to protect itself or others, which I would call good. This made me think, are animals really capable of having a bad will? I don't think so. They never do anything out of desire to do harm but instead out of desire for preservation. The creatures who are really capable of having a bad will are humans. Seeing as the thing that separates humans from dogs is reason, this makes me think that maybe reason also comes with a responsibility and more difficult choices. We've been blessed with reason, but we have to work harder to use it in the right way. Reason could either be used positively or negatively.
ReplyDeleteI don't think honestly that Kant's categorical imperative can apply to animals. I do agree that dogs act out of duty to their families, but do cats? Cats are not protective for anyone or anything besides themselves and their young. To me, this means that their only sense of duty is self preservation and the preservation of their young. I think all animals are like this, and that only domesticated dogs are not because they were raised by families. Animals even eat each other (ex: lions eating gazelles) in order to survive, indicating an extreme lack of communal duty. I think that the extent of animal reasoning is simply instinct, whereas the extent of human reasoning is morality, creating among us a sense of duty that animals will never have the ability to establish among themselves.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Megan, and moreover, animals will on occasion eat others of their own kind to survive. This eliminates any notion of communal loyalty or duty. If, in the case of dogs, we enter animals into a community of humans, then it is possible that Kant's rules could apply. But broken down, when only considering the fundamental position and role of animals in the world, Kant's categorical imperative can't possibly apply because instinct and reason are not comparable. As Rochelle pointed out, our unique ability to reason gives us the responsibility to make moral choices, whereas animals acting based on instinct have one motive: to survive. This motive may be transformed into their one universal maxim/law upon which they simply act.
ReplyDeleteI think Kant completely tables the question regarding the ability of animals to act morally simply through defining his way out of the possibility. If a dog got too playful and bit someone, you would attempt to condition the dog not to do that (as this is what training really is), not to have a conversation explaining why biting is immoral. I agree that animals must have some problem solving abilities, but I'm not sure reason would be the right word for it in the sense that Kant uses it. I also think that we do have a duty towards animals because of the fact that we are rational beings and are capable of acting morally and they are not. Kant obviously does not agree with this, but there it is nonetheless. I do not think that animals are simply billiard balls.
ReplyDelete