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.
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.
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.
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.
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. This is a problem, as an innocent man could be treated as guilty and have the same result, given that the mass believe that he is guilty.
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].
Kant’s attempt to save the metaphysics was to propose synthetic a priori knowledge that Hume failed to recognize. Hume holds that we have no necessary (or even probable) material synthetic knowledge, but Kant believes that there should be another type of knowledge that is universal, necessary and a priori that tells us about the world (synthetic). We shall start our discussion with the first part of the Transcendental Doctrine of the Elements with the Transcendental Aesthetic. Kant holds that there’s no other way that objects can be given to us through anything other than our sensibility (A20). By sensibility, he refers to the faculty of our receptivity of representations in which we are affected by objects.
The last ethical concept is known as Utilitarianism. Conceived by two men, John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham, Utilitarianism is a part of the ethical theory that places the locus of right and wrong solely on the outcomes, a concept known as consequences. This is derived from an individual choosing one action over the other and accepting the consequences of the outcome. It is because of this overarching concept that consequences are able to move beyond the scope of one 's own interests and adopts the interest of
The intent of Assisted Suicide is to eliminate the pain and suffering of a patient by in a sense being able to “Die with Dignity.” (Endlink3) However, this idea violates the morals of others, sends a negative message to individuals who are struggling,and terminates the possibility of the situation
Now we have a justifiable reason not to kill, because killing someone deprives them of the happiness they enjoyed while be alive, and we can also conclude that there is a justifiable reason to kill when life holds more unhappiness than happiness according act utilitarianism. For example someone who is suffering through a terminal illness
The Decision to Drop the Bomb In the Battle of Okinawa 1941, Japanese Kamikaze suicide pilots targeted the US in Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor. Over 2,400 American and British lives were taken from this world, an additional 1,178 wounded. The President of the United States, Harry Truman, was faced with an ethical dilemma of whether to use the atomic bomb against Japan that could end WWII. My goal is to try to answer this moral question using the philosophical views on the morality of Held, Kant, Aristotle, and Mill.