According to Kant, imperatives provide standards for correct reasoning.

It also governs the

activity of a rational agent. There are two kinds of imperatives: hypothetical imperative and

categorical imperative. A hypothetical imperative (HI) says that you ought to do X, because you

want Y that follows X. This imperative is conditional and good for other things. You only ought to

do X, on the condition that you want Y. A categorical imperative (CI) is different. It says that you

ought to do X, no matter what you want. A CI is unconditional and good for itself. Because Kant

believes that good will is good without limitation and good for itself, a principle of good willing

should be unconditional. Therefore, it should be a CI. Kant then offers two formulas for the CI:

formula of universal law (FUL) and formula of humanity (FOH). He argues that both laws are

equivalent. In this essay, I will show how they are equivalent by applying a case of doctor and

patient to both formula. To do this, I will first explain what is the FUL and what it aims to show.

Second, I will translate the FOH and explain it using an example. Then, I will apply the case

between Dr. Smith and George to both formulas, and show the advice Kant might offer using each

formula. Finally, I will explain how both formulas offer the same moral verdict and how they are

equivalent.

The first formula for the CI, which Kant offers, is the FUL. The FUL says that “ Act only on that

maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal

law.” (p420-421) Acting according to the FUL involves four steps.

1. Determine the maxim of a rational agent’s actions. Maxim means the principle of one’s actions.

2. Imagine that everyone acts on this maxim.

3. Determine whether it is possible for the maxim to be an universal law without contradiction.

4. If the answer to step 3 is “yes”, then determine whether one will that the maxim should become

an universal law.

If either answer to step 3 or step 4 is “no”, then acting on this maxim is morally wrong. On the other

hand, if both answers to step 3 and 4 are “yes”, then acting the maxim is morally permissible.
 I will use the example of lying to better illustrate the procedure of the FUL. In step 1, we

determine that the maxim for one’s actions is lying. In step 2, we universalize his maxim and

imagine that everyone acts on this maxim of lying. In step 3, we figure out that this maxim of lying

can not be an universal law without contradiction for the following reasons. For a person to lie

successfully, those who he lies to should trust him and believe that what he says is true. However, if

everyone lies, then no one will trust anyone and it will be impossible for those who the liar lies to to

trust him. They will not believe in what he says. So, the liar cannot lie successfully. As a result,

there is a contradiction. In step 4, we need to find whether someone may will that the maxim should

become a universal law. If everyone lies, it is difficult for us to communicate and cooperate. It

brings troubles for us to live our life. Therefore, one cannot will rationally that this maxim should

become a universal law. Because both the answer for step 3 and for step 4 are “no”, acting on this

maxim of lying is morally wrong.

Kant offers the FOH as another formula for the CI. According to Kant, the FOH is: “ so act that

you use humanity, in your own person as well as in the person of any other, always at the same time

as an end, never merely as a means.” (p429) Humanity in persons means the rational nature of

humans. For Kant, it is morally permissible for one to treat humanity in persons as a means and an

end at the same time. For example, when I engage with my teachers, I treat their rational nature as a

means for me to learn certain knowledge. At the same time, I also treat their rational nature as an

end. Treating their rational nature as a end gives me reasons to respect them. These reasons limit my

actions. I will not be rude and act disrespectfully toward my teachers. I also recognize them as

rational agents with their own ends. I respect them out of this recognition, and I will act in a way

that shows my respect. I will be polite and thankful toward their efforts. I consider their rational

nature not as a thing but something with unconditional and absolute value. It is morally permissible

to do that. However, it is morally wrong for one to treat humanity in persons merely as a means, but

not an end. For example, I may treat the rational nature of my teachers as merely a means. In this
case, I may treat their rational nature in the same way I treat my textbooks. I use their rational

nature merely as a thing available for my purpose of learning certain knowledge. Because I fail to

treat their rational nature as an end, I have no reason of respect, which limits my action. I may be

rude and act disrespectfully toward them. I also fail to consider them as rational agents with their

own ends and establish some respect out of this recognition. I fail to consider their rational nature as

something with unconditional and absolute value. This act of treating humanity in persons merely

as a means but an end is morally wrong according to the FOH.

To figure out whether the FUL and the FOH are equivalent, I will apply a case to both formulas to

see whether they give the same moral verdict. First, I will apply the case of Dr. Smith and George to

the FUL. Dr. Smith believes that George is very likely to make a bad decision if she truthfully

explains the test. To potentially save George’s life, Dr. Smith may choose to deceive George about

the level of pain involved in the test. In step 1, the maxim Dr. Smith acts on is to lie to patients for

their benefits. In step 2, we can universalize the maxim and imagine a world where every doctor lies

to his/her patients for their benefits. In step 3, we find out that there is a contradiction. If every

doctor lies their patients for their benefits, patients will stop trusting their doctors and believe what

doctors said. However, to act on this maxim of deceiving patients for their benefits, a doctor needs

her patients to trust her and believe what she said. Without trust, deceiving will not be possible. For

example, Dr. Smith may deceive George that the test will not be painful for George’s benefit.

However, because every doctor deceives patients for their benefits and no patient trusts his/her

doctor, George will not believe in what Dr. Smith says. So, when Dr. Smith tells George that the test

will not be painful, George will not believe in that and take the test. Therefore, Dr. Smith can not

successfully deceive George for his benefit when we universalize her maxim. So, the maxim of

deceiving patients for their benefits cannot become an universal law without contradiction. In step

4, we should find out whether one can rationally will that this maxim should become a universal

law. When one goes to his doctor and asks about his health condition, he wishes that his doctor will
truthfully tell him about it. However, if one lives in a society where every doctor lies for the

benefits of her patients, he fails to know the true condition about his health as he wishes. Therefore,

one cannot rationally will that this maxim should become a universal law. Because the answers to

step 3 and set 4 are “no”, acting on the maxim of deceiving patients for their benefits is morally

wrong. As a result, we know that according to the FUL, it is immoral for Dr. Smith to deceive

George in this case.

I will then apply the case of Dr. Smith and George to the FOH. According to the FOH, in the case

of Dr. Smith and George, it is morally wrong for Dr. Smith to deceive George, because Dr. Smith’s

act of deceiving George treat George’s rational merely as an end, but not a means. When she tells

George that the test will be a routine painless thing, she is actually introducing a false premise into

George’s reasoning. Based on this false premise, George may will to take the test as she wishes.

However, Dr. Smith’s act of deceiving distorts true information and eliminates the chance for

George to choose between taking or not taking the test using his rational nature. In this way, she

manipulates George’s rational nature and fails to co-reason with George as a rational agent.

Therefore, Dr. Smith treats George’s rational nature merely as a means. So, her action of deceiving

is morally wrong according to the FOH.

Some objectors may argue that Dr. Smith actually treats George’s rational nature as an end,

because she deceives George for George’s benefit, instead of her own benefit. Deceiving others for

one’s own benefit fails to treat the rational nature as an end. “For then it is manifest that a violators

the rights of man intends to use the person of others merely as a means without taking into

consideration that, as rational beings, they ought always at the same time to be rated as ends—that

is, only as beings who must themselves be able to share in the end of the very same action” (P430)

This quote says that when we treat humanity in persons as end, they are able to share in the end of

the action. When I deceive a man for my benefit, he is not able to share in the end of my act of

deceiving. So, I am not treating humanity in persons as end in this case. However, Dr. Smith’s act is
different from mine. She deceive George for George’s benefit. She also reasons that if George turns

out to have the illness, he will be grateful to know it. Therefore, George is able to share in the end

of Dr. Smith’s act. So, Dr. Smith treats humanity in person as an end and acts morally according to

the FOH.

However, although Dr. Smith’s act allows George to share the end of the act, she fails to treat

humanity in person as an end. Humanity in persons is their rational nature. Dr. Smith fails to respect

George’s rational nature and treat George as a rational agent. When Dr. Smith deceives George, she

removes the opportunity for George to choose rationally between taking the test or not. She fails to

respect George as a rational agent that can make rational decisions. She treats George more like a

infant, who lacks the ability to reason properly. In this way, although she respects George’s end and

her act allows George to share the end of her act, she fails to respect George’s rational nature. So,

she fails to treat humanity in person as a end and acts immorally according to the FOH.

Kant believes that the FOH and the FUL are equivalent. In this case, because both the FUL and

the FOH suggest that deceiving George is morally wrong, they gives the same result for the same

problem. Moreover, the FOH and the FUL are equivalent not only in the sense that they yield the

same result for the same problem. The FOH actually follows the FUL. To show this, we can first set

the FOH, which says that treating humanity in persons never merely as a means and always as an

end as a maxim. Then, we can universalize this maxim and imagine everyone act on this maxim.

There is no contradiction for one to act according to the FOH when everyone is acting according to

the FOH. Finally, one rational will that this maxim of FOH should become a universal law.

Therefore, the FOH follows the FUL. As a result, we can conclude that the FOH and the FUL are

equivalent in that they yield the same result for the same problem and in that one follows another.