Jennifer Sebik FYE- Homework Assignment #2 Interpretation of Kant March 24th, 2004 Kant's thesis, stated in the introduction to his article, is that rational beings are ends-in themselves and must never be used as means. Only they have intrinsic and moral worth. Animals are not persons because they are not rational, self-conscious beings and are incapable of grasping moral law. We, humans, possess reason and animals do not according to most western thought. Humans have a will, which can be also described as free will or volition. It is a basis of action. The first sentence of Kant's article, "The will is conceived as a faculty of determining oneself to action in accordance with the conception of certain laws. This suggests the idea of freedom, which we have, and other animals do not. This suggests that their behavior is based upon stimuli which results in a reaction, something which there is no control over, such as the knee jerking in response to being hit. Kant says that the difference between humans and animals is that animals lack reason. Since animals have no reason, humans have no moral responsibility to others whom have no reason, mainly animals. Kants article suggests that we are morally obligated to treat animals with humanity. This is not an inalienable right given to animals. This duty is considered an indirect consequence to the moral good of mankind. Cruelty towards animals culminates in cruelty towards mankind. So, why doesnt Kant feel that animals should have intrinsic rights as humans do? By their very nature, animals share analogies with humans that evoke compassion on the hearts of those Kant believes are morally righteous. Kant contends that animals display no acts of free will or reason, therefore they cannot be regarded as an end in itself. In other words they carry no intrinsic value. They can make no decisions of their own free will. They are conditioned and cannot deviate from their senses or instincts. They are...