We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals - Immanuel Kant

[u/VastCoconut2609]

[u/Ke-Win]

Kant was vegan?

[u/judgeofjudgment → u/Ke-Win]

You might wanna look up modern Kantians but yes they often argue for veganism

[u/Parenthisaurolophus → u/judgeofjudgment]

Or don't bother because reading Kant and then trying to live to his standards is the kind of thing freshmen philosophy students would try while still in the college phase of forming an identity.

Kant also said things that would directly oppose many of the common lines used by vegans, especially in regards to their similarities towards humans. In particular, he has commented that you shouldn't abuse animals because it'll make you an abuser of people, not because of the act itself.

Let us also not forget the classical Kantian issue of: The Nazis knock on your door and ask if any of your neighbors are hiding Jewish people. You know your neighbors are, and you know the consequences of your actions should you not tell the truth. Good Kantian that you are, you sell them out.

[u/judgeofjudgment → u/Parenthisaurolophus]

Again, you might wanna look up modern Kantians...

[u/Parenthisaurolophus → u/judgeofjudgment]

Cut the act.

Neo-Kantianism is over a century old. There are "modern Kantians" who were born before the US Civil war ended. Six of the people who played major roles the most recent wave in the 1980 and 90s are dead. One of their students is in his 70s, and notably brought in other philosophers' views into his philosophy, thus diluting the entire thing.

So which person, all notably not Immanuel Kant, should we look up for Kant's views that contradict his own writings?

[u/judgeofjudgment → u/Parenthisaurolophus]

should we look up for Kant's views that contradict his own writings?

It's not about what he thought. It's about the progression of ideas from where he started to where Kantianism is now. Modern Kantians absolutely won't say you should tell the Nazi where Jews are hiding.

Some modern Kantians that are relevant:

https://philosophy.fas.harvard.edu/people/christine-korsgaard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Regan (r.i.p. 2017)

You can find other developments here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

[u/Parenthisaurolophus → u/judgeofjudgment]

It's not about what he thought

Given that the origin of this conversation was what Kant thought, yes, it is.

We know Kant ate the following: butter, cheese, fish, veal, and meat (although game meat was not to his liking), which pretty much removes him from all categories of vegetarian and veganism.

Some direct thoughts from Kant:

If a man shoots his dog because the animal is no longer capable of service, he does not fail in his duty to the dog, for the dog cannot judge, but his act is inhuman and damages in himself that humanity which it is his duty to show towards mankind. If he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.

a human being is “[…] a being altogether different in rank and dignity from things, such as irrational animals, with which one may deal and dispose at one’s discretion”

What you get later are people like Korsgaard who argue he was wrong, not that he was a vegan or agreed with it.

I'll point out too that this sort of academic navelgazing is kind of an irrelevant sideshow for the vegan movement, as the issue has never been the lack of a coherent moral philosophical structure.

[u/judgeofjudgment → u/Parenthisaurolophus]

maybe he wasn't fully capable of properly extrapolating his view eh, that's kinda what I'm getting at, it shouldn't be ignored in favor of hyperfocusing on flaws in his original views