Traces of Kantian philosophy in "Ecoporn"

While reading Welling's article on ecoporn, I was vaguely reminded me of the different moral theories of Mill's utilitarianism and Kant's categorical imperatives. To summarize briefly, utilitarianism believes that the action that brings about the greatest amount of pleasure is the correct one. For Kant, categorical imperatives were based upon rational thought and looking at actions as good in themselves, rather than examining their consequences. For example,
Kant sees telling the truth as a categorical imperative, so even if someone's life depended on you lying, you should tell the truth. The consequences of the action are irrelevant.

I can see these philosophies interact in Welling's article when he says, "I can imagine many of my fellow parents objecting loudly to the idea that there is any connection whatsoever between Playboy and Florida Panther Net. The trouble with this kind of 'intentionalist' approach... is that it would distract attention form the rhetoric of the images itself" (65). Although the intentions of Florida Panther Net are noble, in that they are trying to educate children and inspire people to care about the well-being the of Florida panther, this should not excuse the method in which it is done. In the Kantian moral philosophy, he emphasizes that we should all value people in their own right and never see them as a means to an end.

(For example, using the popular trolley scenario, imagine if you were on an out of control trolley headed to kill five people on the tracks and you had the choice to switch directions and kill only one person. In Kant's theory, you should remain on the track you're on rather than switch tracks, since the sole person on the other tracks has a right to live, and who are you to choose who lives anyway? Although tragic, the five deaths are simply the unfortunate outcome of the situation.)

Keeping this moral philosophy in mind, it becomes easier to accept Welling's argument. So what if ecoporn is designed to make us care for the environment? We are treating as an object, at a distance, rather than seeing it as it truly is and valuing it as such. Going back to Welling's discussion of the photographs of the Florida panther, he criticizes them saying, "the viewer... is most definitely not placed in the position of a fellow animal--working hard to catch a glimpse of a fast, powerful predator that under truly wild circumstances would not welcome the attention. Rather, we are cast in the role of voyeurs, potential destroyers, and/or potential saviors of the compliant or unknowing... animal victim" (66). In these photographs, these animals are simply passive, not truly looking back, but this is only due to how they are presented. The photographs are evidence that we do not value nature for what it truly is, but that they're simply representations of it that fit our own agendas and desires.