This means that human beings are obliged to be kind to non-human animals, just like they are kind to fellow human beings. According to this position, humans have no right to use other animals as guinea pigs or carry out experiments on them to satisfy the interests of human beings because this leads to exploitation (Pojman 62). The deontological position recognizes that animals are ends in themselves, just like people.
According to Singer, human beings should be kind to non-human animals because their rights cannot be overridden by utility. Actions that subject non-human animals should be abolished, altogether. For instance, according to Regan, commercial animal farming should be totally dissolved, and not reformed. Man should completely abstain from actions that subject animals to suffering. Coercion should not be used on animals because even children cannot be experimented on. Therefore, human beings ought to be kind on humans, the way they are kind to their children, who are fellow human beings. As such, all animals ought to be protected from unnecessary suffering (Pojman 62). As an objective of ensuring that he does not suppress his human feelings, man should be kind to animals. The way a man treats animals happens to be a yardstick for measuring his heart in terms of cruelty or kindness (Pojman 64).
There are various arguments opposing or supporting the view whether animals should be treated as “ends-in-themselves”. This implies that man does not merely exist as a means to be subjected to arbitrary use by whichever will. Kant states that all the actions of man, concerning him and other rational beings should be regarded as an end. The worth of other objects is regarded as only restricted. The reason for this is that the inclinations in objects are sources of want and this prevents them from having absolute worth to enable them to be desired.
Universally, all rational beings should wish that they are wholly free from objects or animals. There are