Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don’t belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren’t protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.
i’m arguing for deontology, but i’m also saying that the arguments that attempt to shoehorn animal rights into deontology are bullshit.
Ok so if you are arguing for Deontology, a core pillar of Deontology (Kantian ethics) is that you must never treat a being with inherent value purely as a means to an end.
By asserting that animals don’t belong in this framework, you are arguing that because animals lack human-level rational agency, they have zero inherent value and can be treated strictly as commodities, tools, or resources for human pleasure.
You aren’t protecting the integrity of Deontology; you are just drawing an arbitrary line at the human species boundary so you can enjoy eating meat without violating your personal rules.