Contra Kantian Anthropocentrism
It is difficult to put the onus on humans to determine what beings are rational. Humans may not be able to understand the rational thought of certain animals. What does this mean for humans in manic states or under other stressors that would contribute to their classification as irrational? It seems Kantian Anthropocentrism would assert that such individuals are not deserving of moral consideration. Placing worth on rational agents being the only ones that deserve moral consideration, could lead to any superior species possessing moral worth. If humans were suddenly not the most rational, nuanced thinkers in the world, is it possible humans’ moral worth would come into question? These potential issues show the argument for Kantian Anthropocentrism cannot be considered. There are issues when humans determine what is rational and what is not. The theory should not be dependent on humans' perception of rationality. Furthermore, there are beings that are worthy of moral consideration without rational thought, due to their benefit to the world. The benefit of trees to the environment cannot be questioned, so to say they have no moral consideration could lead to the depletion of trees and other organisms essential to ecosystems.