That’s completely different, if humans all started eating each other then your own existence is at risk, so a moral imperative arises.
This doesn’t apply to other animals.
This doesn’t apply to other animals.
Kant sort to solve moral questions using pure reason. Culminating in his famous categorical imperative, also known as the universality principle: “It is our duty to act in such a manner that we would want everyone else to act in a similar manner in similar circumstances towards all other people”
You have some how confused this with pragmatism, and while Kant could be viewed as quite pragmatic, taken to its extreme, a pragmatic position would be: if you are hungry and human meat is available, then eat it.
> Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
For instance, don‘t inflict unnecessary harm on living animals if it can be reasonably avoided.
At least to me this sounds like a pretty reasonable rule that I would be willing to follow and could prevent a lot of suffering in the world.
Other hominids? Neanderthals?
Funny where empathy ends, isn't it. It seems to be subject to individual variation.