Diem

Kant’s Response
Kant would respond to these questions differently. First, he would be opposed to the act
of aliens eating humans. Kant holds that only humans are moral agents, and only humans should
be candidates of moral considerability. Based on this, therefore, it is morally wrong to eat
humans. Before eating humans, certain moral considerations should be made. These include the
fact that humans have the capacity to feel pain. They are sensitive to cruel actions such as being
eaten by the aliens. Based on this argument, therefore, it is wrong and immoral to cause pain and
suffering to humans.
Kant argues that humans are rational beings. They are free to choose their own ends.
They also have the freedom to choose and determine their own values as well as actions. The
same does not apply to animals. Animals are not only irrational, but they lack the capability to
choose their own ends. They cannot determine their actions or even values. Thus, humans can
choose to use animals as a means to an end. For example, they can choose to eat them for
pleasure. However, the same cannot be done on humans since they are rational beings.
However, Kant would not be opposed to the act of humans eating animals. He would
therefore find it right that humans eat animals. He argues that animals lack the capacity to make
moral judgements, but humans can make moral judgements. They can also act based on moral
principles. Thus, Kant’s basic claim is that animals are not human or even moral agents. They do
not have any moral standing. They lack the necessary properties to be considered moral agents.
Based on this argument, therefore, the act of eating animals cannot be looked at through the
moral lens. Therefore, Kant would find nothing wrong with the act of humans eating animals.
Animals ack higher capacities and characteristics of personhood. It is, therefore, right to eat

them. However, it is wrong to eat humans because they have higher capacities and features and
have the capacity to suffer.
Singer’s Argument
Singer argues that both animals and humans have the capacity to experience pain and
suffering. Before undertaking any action, the interest of any being that will or might be affected
by the action must be taken into consideration. If an action causes a being to suffer, then there
can be no moral justification for the action. The principle of equality requires that the suffering
of a being be considered. If a being is not capable of suffering or enjoying, then nothing should
be taken into account.
Singer accuses those who fail to give equal consideration to both human and nonhuman
beings of speciesism. This refers to discrimination of a nonhuman being based solely on its
species. Just the same way racism and sexism are wrong, so is speciesism. Speciesism is the
wrong o the extent it violates the principle of equal consideration. This principle does not
necessarily infer equal treatment. On the contrary, it refers to the fact that nonhumans also have
interests that are common to those of humans. According to Singer’s principle, when an action
entails comparable interests, then equal weight must be given to the interests of humans as well
as nonhumans.
The principle holds that when suffering is experienced, then equal weight should be given
to action, whether it affects humans or animals. In this light, therefore, the actions of the aliens in
eating humans is wrong. Similarly, the actions of humans in eating animals is wrong. This is
because, in both actions, there is suffering involved. The humans suffer when the aliens eat them,
and the animals suffer when humans eat them. The suffering of humans should not be taken

more seriously than that of animals. In both, there is suffering involved. As such, the actions
involved in both instances are wrong. Humans should not assume that only their suffering should
be considered more seriously, yet they also engage in actions that lead to the suffering of
animals.
Based on Singer’s principle, therefore, the production of meat from animals is wrong. It
would almost equate to producing human meat. It is a wrong action that leads to the suffering of
animals, which though not human, do not deserve to be exposed to suffering. Eating animals
causes immense suffering to sentient creatures. The act produces pleasure to humans, as they
enjoy consuming meat while leading o suffering on the other hand. The pleasure of humans
cannot and should not justify the action of eating meat. It is therefore wrong, just as is eating of
humans by aliens. Based on this principle, Singer would be opposed to the act of aliens eating
humans as well as to the act of humans eating animals.
Steinbock’s Response
Steinbock holds that humans are different from nonhumans. They belong to different
species. It is these differences that usually provides the basis for justification on why animals are
treated differently from humans. Steinbock is opposed to Singer’s argument on speciesism. He
holds that the differences in species explain why humans are treated differently from animals in
the first place. The placement in different groups implies that there are differences between
members of these different species.
According to Steinbock, humans are special compared o animals by virtue of the fact that
the two belong o different species. Humans are responsible for their actions. They have
capacities that animals lack. For example, they can return favors, unlike humans. Thus, it is not

justifiable to argue that humans should be accorded equal treatment to animals because there are
outright differences between the two.
In response to the issue of eating animals, Steinbock supports the act. He is, however,
opposed to outright cruelty against animals. Steinbock holds that deliberate cruelty against
humans and nonhumans cannot be justified. Thus, if animals can be eaten without necessarily
being subjected to cruel actions, then, by all means, that is right. Animals do not deserve equal
moral treatment as humans. Therefore, while it is right to eat animals, Steinbock would definitely
be opposed to the act of eating humans. Humans, he argues, are rational beings who deserve
moral consideration. Humans have moral worth, but the same does not apply to animals. It is this
moral worth that makes it morally wrong to eat humans.
Comparatively, Singer’s argument on treating animals and humans is lacking. Besides,
treating animals different from humans cannot be equated to racism or sexism. Animals are
different from humans in many ways. They belong to different species, and this makes it
justifiable to treat them differently. Besides, animals cannot be given equal moral consideration
as humans because they lack moral capacities. Similarly, Kant’s argument is not the best because
it takes a very extreme stance. Kant believes that only humans have rights. They occupy a higher
position in society and can thus treat animals anyhow they wish because animals belong to
humans
Overall, Steinbock makes the best case. He admits that cruelty is wrong and does not
offer any justification for cruel acts, whether they are done against humans or nonhumans. He
also acknowledges that animals have rights. However, he makes it clear that animals and humans
should not be treated equally because the two do not belong to the same category. He provides
the reasoning behind the importance of valuing human life more than that of animals. First, the

higher value accorded to human life is based on the fact that they possess certain higher
capacities that are lacking in animals. Placing more value on human life entails regarding human
interests highly because they count for more. It is based on this assertion that Steinbock sees
animal suffering as less deplorable compared to human suffering. Thus, Steinbock’s argument
explains best why animals should be eaten, but humans should not. Thus, it is wrong for aliens to
eat humans, but it is not wrong for humans to eat aliens.