MEANS TO AN END
Introduction
Stimulus
The stimulus references the second formulation of Immanuel Kant’s categorial imperative, which
itself informs his deontological ethical framework.
His strongly impartial and principled ideals have been influential in ethics circles, and their
universally immutable nature allows for popular notions such as human rights, international law,
equality, freedom, and autonomy.
Evaluation
Strictly regarding the idea of using persons as means to ends, I will therefore argue in favour of
Kant’s logic, based on these implications, though will also note some issues requiring attention
concerning his moral philosophy on the whole.
I will also examine utilitarianism’s position on this ‘means to an end’ dilemma, and find that its
position here allows for injustices and morally dubious actions - and that even should utilitarianism’s
positive aspects be considered, it should be ruled out as an ethical framework where the usage of
persons as means to ends is concerned.
Kant
General Theory
Kant’s ethical framework is based upon his idea that humans possess freedom, what he called
rational autonomy - and that we can exercise this through practical reason, and determine for
ourselves what we ought to do.
As a deontologist, Kant believed that the motive behind actions, our duty, should be the driving
factor behind the actions themselves, rather than consequences.
The Categorical Imperative
By exercising his own practical reason, Kant identified several formulations of his categorical
imperative, which forms the basis for his ethical framework - it can be applied to any action to
determine whether the action is right or wrong.
1. In the first formulation, Kant argues that we should only act on maxims that could be
universalised as laws. This provides an absolute, incorruptible basis for morality, and doesn’t
look at consequences when theoretically universalising laws - a maxim should not be
universalised because of undesirable consequences, but rather if it would lead to contradictions
in conception (such as lying promises), or in will (whereby universalisation leads to situations
that our human nature would not practically allow).
2. This formulation will be left alone for now, as Kant’s second (and to an extent third) formulations
are more relevant to the question of using humans as means to an end - though it should be
noted that for Kant, using humans as means to an end could not be universalised. The second
formulation (as expressed in the stimulus) says that other humans should never be treated as
mere means, but always as ends in themselves. For Kant, to use another human as a means to
an end is to disregard their own rational autonomy, which all humans possess, and is key to
determining ethics itself. Kant’s claim is immediately appealing, and resonates with seemingly
clear notions of human rights and the equality of all. I would also argue that, while the
universality of Kant’s idea is one of its strong points, the space it leaves for leniency is also
highly practical. By this, I refer to Kant’s phrasing that we should never use other humans
‘merely’ as means to an end - so for Kant, consenting contractual relationships are acceptable,
which is simply a beneficial notion.
3. This idea invokes Kant’s third formulation, his idea that we should live and act as members of a
‘community of ends’, where the dignity and rational autonomy of all are respected. The multiple
formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative combine to form a very attractive and idealistic
model of ethics and society. They find many actions immoral that we would find to be so
intuitively - some of which concern using persons as means to ends. Murder, slavery, the general
idea of ‘crimes against humanity’ - Kant’s ideas condemn these all, and universally so. This
objective nature is another positive with Kant’s deontological theory.
Introduction
Stimulus
The stimulus references the second formulation of Immanuel Kant’s categorial imperative, which
itself informs his deontological ethical framework.
His strongly impartial and principled ideals have been influential in ethics circles, and their
universally immutable nature allows for popular notions such as human rights, international law,
equality, freedom, and autonomy.
Evaluation
Strictly regarding the idea of using persons as means to ends, I will therefore argue in favour of
Kant’s logic, based on these implications, though will also note some issues requiring attention
concerning his moral philosophy on the whole.
I will also examine utilitarianism’s position on this ‘means to an end’ dilemma, and find that its
position here allows for injustices and morally dubious actions - and that even should utilitarianism’s
positive aspects be considered, it should be ruled out as an ethical framework where the usage of
persons as means to ends is concerned.
Kant
General Theory
Kant’s ethical framework is based upon his idea that humans possess freedom, what he called
rational autonomy - and that we can exercise this through practical reason, and determine for
ourselves what we ought to do.
As a deontologist, Kant believed that the motive behind actions, our duty, should be the driving
factor behind the actions themselves, rather than consequences.
The Categorical Imperative
By exercising his own practical reason, Kant identified several formulations of his categorical
imperative, which forms the basis for his ethical framework - it can be applied to any action to
determine whether the action is right or wrong.
1. In the first formulation, Kant argues that we should only act on maxims that could be
universalised as laws. This provides an absolute, incorruptible basis for morality, and doesn’t
look at consequences when theoretically universalising laws - a maxim should not be
universalised because of undesirable consequences, but rather if it would lead to contradictions
in conception (such as lying promises), or in will (whereby universalisation leads to situations
that our human nature would not practically allow).
2. This formulation will be left alone for now, as Kant’s second (and to an extent third) formulations
are more relevant to the question of using humans as means to an end - though it should be
noted that for Kant, using humans as means to an end could not be universalised. The second
formulation (as expressed in the stimulus) says that other humans should never be treated as
mere means, but always as ends in themselves. For Kant, to use another human as a means to
an end is to disregard their own rational autonomy, which all humans possess, and is key to
determining ethics itself. Kant’s claim is immediately appealing, and resonates with seemingly
clear notions of human rights and the equality of all. I would also argue that, while the
universality of Kant’s idea is one of its strong points, the space it leaves for leniency is also
highly practical. By this, I refer to Kant’s phrasing that we should never use other humans
‘merely’ as means to an end - so for Kant, consenting contractual relationships are acceptable,
which is simply a beneficial notion.
3. This idea invokes Kant’s third formulation, his idea that we should live and act as members of a
‘community of ends’, where the dignity and rational autonomy of all are respected. The multiple
formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative combine to form a very attractive and idealistic
model of ethics and society. They find many actions immoral that we would find to be so
intuitively - some of which concern using persons as means to ends. Murder, slavery, the general
idea of ‘crimes against humanity’ - Kant’s ideas condemn these all, and universally so. This
objective nature is another positive with Kant’s deontological theory.
