Option A - SHANAN REA- student number-16820932

Introduction

Immanuel Kant stated that human beings should be treated as an end in themselves and not a
means to something else.
Thinking like this will prevent people from acting in a manner that is of a low moral standard.
This is because treating someone as a means to something else may lead you to manipulating
them because you will believe that they are a means to achieving something else.
A person who is willing to manipulate does not truly care about their peers, however they might
pretend to if it means that it will further themselves.
This is the type of person who Kant is referring to when he says “...not as a means to something
else.”.
On the other hand we have genuine people who legitimately care about other people.
These people generally tell the truth even if it's hard to hear.
These people treat people like something valuable and divine as opposed to treating them like a
means to getting what they want.
Kant refers to these people as people who treat other human beings as an end in themselves.
-
This statement focuses on the sovereignty of an individual where they are considered rational.
At the center of everything, this rational individual is to be kept.

Immanuel Kant states that it is immoral to use another person as a means to an end.
He states that people at all times must be considered an end in themself.
Kant states that all rational beings must be considered an end.We are intrinsically valuable.

As an example. Deceiving someone for our gains is treating someone as a means.

To continue… Every rational being is an end in itself. Every rational being has value as dignity.
This makes it irreplaceable. We therefore deserve respect. One could also say that we deserve
respect because we can set ends for ourselves.

As a person is an end in itself it means that pur value does not depend on anything. As an
example… it doesn't matter if a person is enjoying their life, they are still valuable. Another
example is that it doesn't matter if they are making other people's lives better, their life is still
valuable.

We should also treat ourselves as an end and respect our inherent worth.
This can also be agued to be a argument against euthenasia , suicide and other behaviours that
do damage to ourselves.

To put it simply, we should not use people as objects but instead recognise their innate value.
Commodifying and objectifying people is considered using them as a means.

This statement that we are analyzing is sometimes called ‘The Formula Of Humanity’
This states that if one is using a person as a means they are acting wrongly.
However he does not state that by not doing so he is acting rightly.
For example, in Kant's view a person can still act wrongly by expressing contempt for another,
even if said person is not using the other at all.

According to Kant it is a sufficient and a necessary condition for treating people in a permissible
way to treat them as if they are ends in themselves.

Kant states that a person may use themself as a means. This is accomplished by acting against
perfect duties to oneself. This includes killing oneself, defiling oneself with lust and lying. If these
acts are done one treats themself as a means therefore contravening the formula of humanity.

Treating others merely as a means violates the moral constraint.

In order for one to be classified as using another, it is not enough that one must do something to
another to realize some end of theirs. They must also intend the presence or participation of
some aspect of the other to contribute to the end's manifestation.

One treats another as a means only if they intentionally do something to or with the other in
order to manifest their end, and they intend the presence or participation of the other to
contribute to the end's manifestation.

We should consider the definition of a mere instrument or tool (this applies to using someone as
a means) which is: someone whos well being and moral claims we ignore and whom we treat in
whatever ways would best achieve our aims.

We may take the case of a kidnapper as an example.

The kidnapper treats his victim as merely a means if the kidnapper uses the victim for profit and
thinks of them simply as a tool to be treated in any way necessary to manifest profit.

If this is how we understand treating others as means then doing so does not always equal
acting wrongly.

A final example I will offer is this. Suppose a gangster considers a barista a mere tool for
obtaining coffee and consider that he would act in any way possible to serve his interest.
In buying coffee from her , the gangster treats her as merely a means, but he does not act
wrongly.

This account of treating people as a means does not seem to coincide with Kant's theory of
doing so.
-

Critiques laid against Kant's views

I personally believe in Kant's assertions. However someone may critique his assertions in the
following ways:

If people are not considered a means then how can large cooperative projects take place?

An interpretation of utilitarianism allows for the use of many individuals as a means to benefit
the many.Many times humans are used to achieve a larger good.

People may be satisfied and feel good when good things happen through them even if they are
only used as vehicles for the action to take place.\

Treating someone as a means does not necessarily mean that they are degradation. It means
that they are used as a means to achieve something.People may volunteer to be a means.An
example would be soldiers who fight to achieve peace.
As long as we do not endanger ,cause loss or degrade the human being who we are using as a
medium , considering them a means is justified.

We may ask ourselves… under what conditions is using someone acceptable?

Eg. Waiters use customers to get tips; customers use waiters as a means to get food;professors
use students to test ideas; students use professors to obtain expertise; and so forth.

Consider a surgeon who extracts vital organs. Should he do this without consent he still may
maximize the good that may come out of this situation, if he could save the lives of a few
desperate people… even though he is using the dead man only as a means.Kantians would say
that he is acting wrongly.

Kant deems this principle as the supreme principle of morality.

But is it plausible to hold that all such actions are wrong?

Kant's deontological ethics

In order to understand Kant we have to delve into Kant's deontological ethics. Deontological
ethics reject the premise that all moral obligation is determined by the consequence of our
actions. Instead deontological theories state that moral obligation is found in some intrinsic
feature of the action or the will of the moral agent. Many different theories fall under the heading
of deontological ethics. Such as existentialism, stoicism, kantianism and divine command.
The divine command theory states that moral obligation is derived from the fact that God has
given a command.Existentialism states that moral obligation is created through our free choices.
Stoicism states that moral obligation is found in the logos, in other words the rational structure of
the universe.

Kantianism delves into topics such as German idealism (he is the founder of the philosophical
movement).This was popular in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.This delves into the
issue of appearance vs reality.This arises out of Kant's attempt to reconcile rationalism and
empiricism.

The early modern period was molded by the desire to respond to the intellectual chaos and
skepticism that arose out of the radical social and intellectual transformations of the
renaissance. The cartesian school hypothesized that knowledge is dependant on cognitions that
form a secure foundation of a priori ideas which could be used to justify our posteriori ideas
which arise from sensory experience.

The empirical tradition that arose from the work of John Locke(which was later expanded upon
by david hume) hypothesized that there were no innate ideas. It also hypothesized that all
knowledge must be based upon direct sensory perception or from the relationships that exist
between the ideas that we derive from direct sensory experience.

The empirical theory of knowledge gave birth to the utilitarian moral theory of Jeremy Bentham
and John Stuart Mill.
Immanual Kant developed an alternative model (as a contemporary of Jeremy Bentham).
This arose out of his attempt to find a middle ground between the rationalist and empirical
approaches to knowledge.
Kant agreed with the empiricists' rejection on innate ideas.
He was however horrified by Hume's argument that empiricism would inevitably lead to
skepticism regarding sensory observations.
This means essentially that there is no such thing as scientific knowledge.
Kant's solution was to argue that while there are no innate ideas there are innate categories
which form the structure of any rational mind.
In Kant's view we see that the mind is not passively receiving ideas from external objects but
rather our sense data is being organized by the innate categories of the mind creating
judgements or thoughts.

Kant argued that the objective nature of the categories of the mind meant that knowledge was
possible.

-
Bibliography
https://www.honeycopy.com/copywritingblog/a-means-to-an-end

https://www.careerride.com/view/human-beings-should-be-treated-as-ends-and-not-as-means-2
5897.aspx

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vy8lNUqModM&ab_channel=ALittleBitofPhilosophy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8Zw5YJWpt4&ab_channel=GregoryB.Sadler

https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/endinitself.shtml

https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/kants-second-formulation-of-the-categorial-imperati
ve/

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/persons-means/