| Popis: |
This chapter defends Kant’s claim that we cannot have duties to animals and asks why he seems to think that if we did not recognize some moral constraint in the treatment of animals (an indirect duty with regard to them) the fact that some of us acted cruelly would “uproot” a natural predisposition in all of us that is “serviceable to morality.” It’s a puzzle, since many of us, even without a duty, would be kind. Because animals inform our understanding of our own embodied life, we mistake who we are if we don’t extend the reach of our duties to them. |
