Utilitarianism versus Kant on the Treatment of Nonhuman Animals

Kant’s view when we mistreat animals is that we wrong ourselves but not violating the animal rights and therefore violating the principle of utility which in this case, will consider those who mistreats animals as wrong since their actions deliver pain to the mistreated animals. For example, If somebody shoots his or her dog because it no longer gives service, he or she does not fail in his duty to that dog because the dog is an irrational being which cannot judge, however, the one who does that acts in an inhuman way and damages that humanity that is in himself or herself that is ought to be shown towards humankind.
Utilitarianism accounts for both human and nonhuman rights. The basic principle of utility has a moral consideration of animal rights and therefore animals ought to be treated the same way as human beings. The principle of utility implies that animals should be treated well in order to produce happiness for animals. If you chop off the head of a donkey you have done wrong to the donkey itself and if you allow it to rest you give that animal the pleasure it deserves. Utilitarianism accounts for equal moral concern to human and nonhuman beings which mean killing an animal for other reasons other than food is wrong, bullfighting and even using animals for medical experimentations is unjustifiable. Kant argues that the fact that rational beings ought to have an indirect moral obligation on animals has been pointed out in his arguments (Altman 23).