A Heideggerian Approach To Justification Of Animal Rights

In the history of Western philosophy,philosophers have begun discussions on animal issues long ago,and in these discussions,how to treat animals fairly is one of the core issues.Different philosophers have given different positions and reasons on how to treat animals fairly.This article first selects the most representative figures and perspectives to explain,they are Descartes,Kant and Bentham.However,we did not have a complete theory of animal rights until Peter Singer put forward the "animal liberation theory" and Tom Regan published "Animal Rights Research." Therefore,after explaining their respective defense paths,this article also criticized their theories one by one.In chapter two of this article,I will use Heidegger’s "Basic Concepts of Metaphysics" as the core text to explore how Heidegger discusses animal issues through what he calls a "comparative road" to the world.Heidegger tried to explore "what is the world" by comparing three world-related propositions.These three propositions are:(1)the stone has no world(weltlos);(2)the animal is poor in the world(weltarm);(3)Man constructs the world(weltbildend).Fundamentally,Heidegger treats the animal’s ontological essence as an intoxicant and regards it as an being who has some similarity with humans.Although Heidegger seems to have such a strong comparison path,the problem is that,first of all,this defense path depends on the similarity of animals and humans.To what extent animals are similar to humans,to what extent they have power.Therefore,the power of animals basically comes from the gift of people,from our charity.It can be seen that Heidegger is still in a humanitarian tradition at this time.Moreover,according to Heidegger’s analysis,meaning openness and drunkenness are fundamentally different,so the conclusion of this conclusion actually ruins the effectiveness of this defense.Secondly,and more importantly,fundamentally,Heidegger regarded the animal’s ontological essence as captivation,thus treating it as a kind of human being with some similarity.If this is used to defend animal rights,then this comparison is obviously based on an analogy.But according to our investigation of Heidegger’s comparative path,this analogy cannot be used for the defense of animal rights because it insists on the essential difference between humans and animals.With the turn of Heidegger’s own thinking,the same internal transformation of thinking on animal issues has taken place.In Chapter 3,I tried to point out through Heidegger’s later thoughts that human beings are different from animals is Freedom,which is an existential level of letting existence,it serves as a motive mechanism for human beings to develop protection for animals.Freedom is not a property right,as the humanitarian tradition says,but a gift that is given.The exercise of this gift does not necessarily require it to be in the interest of mankind.Therefore,a defense path of a world response obligation claims that people have a world response obligation,and this obligation ultimately requires us not only to participate in the process of Die Welt welten,but also to manifest itself for the world itself,such as preserving biodiversity –to use the freedom we are gifted.