Our Duties to Animals and the Poor

In this article I will explain whether behavior on our animals is immoral. Assuming that he is right, McGinn will soon discuss his reasons. He said, "There is moral responsibility to alleviate the suffering of animals we trade and to stop killing" (McGinn 150). This is the structure of his argument. (1) It is morally wrong to cause suffering and death of unnecessary animals (2) It causes suffering and death of unnecessary animals. Therefore, (3) what we do to animals is morally wrong.

Our responsibility to animals is only an indirect obligation to human beings. Animal nature resembles human nature Through responsibility of man's expression for animals, we indirectly fulfill our responsibility to humans .... We judge the person's mind by dealing with animals (Regan Singer, 1989: 23-24). Because they are cruel, this behavior is wrong. They betrayed indifference to the pain that may emerge ... to deal with other rational actors and their people. Therefore, the act may not infringe any rights ... but the impact it has on any animal lover is wrong (Carruthers, 1992: 153-54)

A perfect duty: It comes from the nature of our animals. As pointed out in the table of § 1, the basic division of responsibility for ourselves is between full and incomplete obligations. Kant says the former as "restrictive (negative) responsibility", ie "the prohibition of human action is against the end of its nature, so it must only be protected by its moral self" (MS 6: 419). These responsibilities are divided into what is caused by the nature of our animals and our moral character (MS 6: 420). According to our responsibility for animal nature, Kant is responsible for defending our lives (and forbidding suicide), forbid the obligation to "save by desire" and prohibit "self-destruction through food and drink" (MS ) 6: 422- 427)