according to Tom Regan what is the difference between direct and indirect duties?
Kelly R. asked:
why does Tom Regan reject the view that we can have only indirect duties to nonhuman animals?
why does Tom Regan reject the view that we can have only indirect duties to nonhuman animals?
Our duties to animals are only indirect duties towards humanity. If there is spillover ( responsibility of others), than both, the direct and indirect duties occur.
direct is contact and indirect is wrong acts.
because is the wrong thing to do.
We shouldn’t care one way or the other.
“One of the most destructive anti-concepts in the history of moral philosophy is the term “duty.”…The meaning of the term “duty” is: the moral necessity to perform certain actions for no reason other than obedience to some higher authority, without regard to any personal goal, motive, desire or interest.
“The arch-advocate of “duty” is Immanuel Kant; he went so much farther than other theorists that they seem innocently benevolent by comparison. “Duty,” he holds, is the only standard of virtue; but virtue is not its own reward: if a reward is involved, it is no longer virtue. The only moral motivation, he holds, is devotion to duty for duty’s sake; only an action motivated exclusively by such devotion is a moral action . . . .”
Kant or Regan, what’s the difference if they both advocate some form of “duty”? Duty is not a virtue if you get a reward from it, so all America’s fighting forces should be doing it for free and loving every limb or eye they lose, and cursing when they don’t lose their very life.
People like Regan make me sick.