In this other version he states, “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Kant 36). In this statement, Kant expresses how a human being should be treated as an object of respect rather than used as an object. He uses the example of a man contemplating suicide. Kant believes that if the man takes away his life in order to escape a difficult situation, then he is using his body as a “means.” His desire to end his suffering, causes him to disrespect his body. If the man were to perform such an action, it would not have been considered morally
The AHA’s discussion of dialogue and truth connect to the ethical theory of Kantianism. Kantianism is a form of Deontology that provides us with the Universal Law Formula and the Humanity as an End in Itself Formula. The Universal Law Formula says that we should treat others in the way that we expect others to treat us. The Humanity as an End in Itself Formula explains that humans should never be used as a means to an end or we should simply respect humans. Through these formulas come the idea of imperfect and perfect duties.
Thomas Carson. This objection states that while egoists may believe that everyone must act in such a way as to promote their self interest, similarly to the self reliance argument for ethical egoism, this may require them to hurt other egoists in process. Furthermore, promoting oneself’s well-being might require for the egoist to hurt themselves. If an egoist is suicidal, it would be considered moral for this egoist to take their own life. Ethical egoism would have no objections to suicide if the egoist is certain that they are better off dead.
The statement that “We should never use a good person as a means to an end” is false. Kant states that the Principle of Humanity is to always treat a human being as an end, and never as a mere means. Kant also believes that you should always respect rational people and should never use anyone or break moral laws no matter what. It is true Kant’s Principle of Humanity is found under categorical imperative, but categorical imperative is a moral obligation that cannot be unkept no matter what the circumstances may be. However, the statement “Kant argues that we should never act based on hypothetical imperatives” is false.
In his perspective, he provides instances in which wrongdoers put the lives of innocent people at risk and discusses the aspect of death and idealism. The author believes that the thoughts of enlightened societies are unwise and ascertains that there are situations whereby torture becomes morally mandatory in dealing with terrorists.
This is an act of injustice, it is unfair to the innocent people who were killed. Rationality and Reasonableness also come into play here. When we talk about human beings we mean rational beings and “treating them as ends-in-themselves" means respecting their rationality. The reasonableness of a person would not allow him/her to manipulate and use people for his/her purpose, no matter how good and noble the purpose maybe. If we use people for our purpose it defeats the idea of the purpose being 'noble ' in the first place.
Appealing the consequences of the derived duties, where Kant considers the consequence of Maxim to become a universal law of nature, Mill considers the consequence of kind action. Evaluating the morality within ourselves they evaluate morality on the principle of what is wrong or right. As equally
around elsewhere in order to see what effects may be bound up with it for me (Kant 70). In this quote, Immanuel Kant addresses whether an action’s moral worth, such as telling the truth, is able to be considered good no matter the circumstances. Kant already established to have moral worth an action must be done from duty, have its moral worth from the maxim, or the intention, that a person wills in doing it, and to be done in reverence of the law (Kant 66-68). Kant sees telling the truth for the sake of duty as having moral worth as it is already in line with what he believes gives an action moral worth. While telling the truth out of fear of a lie’s consequences may give the same result but have different moral undertones.
C.S. Lewis wrote in his paper, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment that modern punishment has moved away from giving criminals what they deserve, and rather it is used as a deterrent against certain acts or a cure for a disease. The remedial view of punishment interprets crime as a disease and that the criminal must be detained until they are cured. This is a problem, as a government could ordain that certain ideologies are a pathological deformity or disability and ‘rightfully’ detain those who carry it. The deterrent view of punishment is instituted to cause terror.
Kant’s principal of morality is a standard of rationality he called the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that there is one, ‘super rule’ that helps you decide if the maxims you are following are morally sound or not. Kant believes one’s duty means acting in accordance with certain moral laws/imperatives, “so act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” [Section 2. pg 14]. Therefore, Kant is saying that moral worth appears to require not only that one’s actions be motivated by duty, but also that no other motives are a driving factor in getting to that end. He further elaborates on this by stating that reason does not simply find the means to end, it decides on proper ends. This all leads to the conclusion that someone of moral worth in the eyes of Kant is only morally ideal if their actions are done from