Immanuel Kant's Principle Of Humanity

Kant’s formula of humanity that states we ought not to treat other people as merely a means

Throughout this paper, I will contrast and compare two moral theories in attempt to uncover what one provides a better argument and can be applied as a universal moral code. The two moral theorists Immanuel Kant and J.S Mill have created two distinctly different theories on morality and how to develop a universal moral code. Both theories focus on intentions and consequences. Kant believes that the intentions and reasons of our actions can be measured and defined as morally correct, where as Mill believes that our intentions really play no role in morality, and that we should focus on the consequences and outcomes of our actions to evoke the most happiness for the most people. Even though both philosophers make incredibly different

     “Few formulas in philosophy have been so widely accepted and variously interpreted as Kant’s injunction to treat humanity as an end in itself”(Hill, 38). Immanuel Kant’s views, as elucidated in his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, are based on the belief that “people count” by prohibiting actions which exploit other individuals in order for self-prosperity or altruistic ends. Ethics then, are confirmed by the dignity and worth of the rational agency of each person. Since human beings are the only rational beings capable of decision making and reasonable judgement, humanity must be valued. Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an

Kant’s second categorical imperative is intended to be a framework to apply his ethics in a practical sense. However, it is only written to be applicable to humans and it excludes animals. Kant states, “Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only” (202). First, to explain the use of the word “humanity”. Kant refers to three components to explain humanity: rationality, absolute worth, and dignity (182). Thus, Kant implies that animals are not rational; therefore, do not have absolute worth and

Immanuel Kant, in “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals”, gives three propositions. I’m going to explain the second proposition using the help from the “Friend of Mankind” example he gives. The example state’s “ this person has been a friend to mankind, but his mind has become clouded by a sorrow of his own that has extinguished all feeling for how others are faring. He still has the power to benefit others in distress, but their need leaves him untouched because he is too preoccupied with his own. But now he tears himself out of his dead insensibility and acts charitably purely from duty, without feeling any want or liking so to behave.”

Kant also believes that human beings have “unconditional worth.” In his passage of, “The Ultimate worth of Persons,” he says:

Humanity is exactly what the name entails, human. People are imperfect creatures who have the unique ability to contemplate their existence and feel emotion, which, more often than not, guides our actions. Our actions, right or wrong, have the potential to affect the lives around us. The complexity that surrounds right and wrong vary based on factors such as circumstance and ideology; thus, the need for ethics, a set of moral principles that are made to distinguish right and wrong behavior. For thousands of years, philosophers have theorized about the unmitigated ethics that could serve as an outline for people as they are constantly confronted with situations that deal with right and wrong. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, formulated ethical guidelines, or moral laws that all people should follow at all times. His moral laws exist under a paradigm called the Categorical Imperative, which is made up of two distinct laws known as the Formula of Universal law and the Formula of Humanity. According to the Formula of Universal Law, all people should act so that the maxim of their actions can be applied universally(citation). In addition to this, the Formula of Humanity suggests that people should be treated as ends rather than as a means(citation). In a perfect world, the Categorical Imperative would work; however, it is impractical. The categorical Imperative has a stark, black and white view of how people should act and does not account for exceptions. Considering we are

Immanuel Kant, a well-known eighteenth century German philosopher, offers a more convincing theory of justice than that supported by utilitarian or Lockean theory by defining what it means to act autonomously. Autonomy, meaning self-govern, regards to ones actions as being a result of their own free will. Although Kant attempted to look for another way for people to be good outside of religion, he believed that people had natural rights that were god given. Kant is best known for his idea of categorical imperative. Essentially this means do to others, as you would like others to do to you. A central theory Kant had was that it is important to treat people as an end of themselves rather than means of an end. It was Kant’s idea of treating

I will be addressing Kant’s claim that “Our duties towards animal are merely indirect duties towards humanity.” What Kant is trying to say is that our duties towards animals are in a way an indirect indication of our duties as humans. So for this reason, if we are nice to animals, we are indirectly doing our responsibilities as human beings. Kant also believes that doing good to animals can positively improve the way we treat others, therefore, making us better individuals. When Kant said, “if he is not to stifle his human feelings, he must practice kindness towards animals, for he who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men.” This means that if we are not hurting ourselves by being kind to animals, then we should be

Kant’s ethics is a nonconsequential perspective that does not depend on an end result. There are other factors to take in in minds such as the moral assessment of an action or the nature of the act. Some of the standards that follow under Kant’s ethics is good will and the categorical imperative. Within the formulation of the categorical imperative include if it is universal acceptability and treating humanity as an end, never as merely a means. Under these standards, Kant’s response would be that it is never morally legitimate to place a monetary value on a human life. Nothing is good in itself, except a good will. Intelligence, courage, self-control, health, and happiness can be bad because it was done out of the wrong intentions or from

Kant argues that humans are the only beings capable of being ends in themselves. He believes that since human were created that they are valuable. Human should not be use a mere end to gain something. Every human is valuable and should treat as such. Human are the only one who can decrease each other’s value. Human should respect the right of each other and avoid hurting each other. Human should help each other reach how valuable they are.

Throughout history morality has been a topic of intense debate. Innumerable thinkers have devoted immense amounts of time and energy to the formulation of various ethical theories intended to assist humans in their daily lives. These theories set out guidelines which help to determine the rightness or wrongness of any given action and can therefore illuminate which choice would be morally beneficial. And while many of these theories differ substantially, most have at least one common underlying principle, namely that humans deserve to be treated with a certain level of respect. This idea comes from the belief that all humans have interests which are significant enough to be considered, hence no one should impede another

Kant believes that the CI is moral principle that is in fact objective. This system gives people autonomy which is the ability to make decisions. You have the choice of following the laws morally or immorally. Everyone should be treated as a person. Everyone is human and everyone is valuable. We should respect all humans. There can no set price on a certain or any human being. No matter what anyone thinks.

"Few formulas in philosophy have been so widely accepted and variously interpreted as Kant's injunction to treat humanity as an end in itself"(Hill, 38). Immanuel Kant's views, as elucidated in his book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, are based on the belief that "people count" by prohibiting actions which exploit other individuals in order for self-prosperity or altruistic ends. Ethics then, are confirmed by the dignity and worth of the rational agency of each person. Since human beings are the only rational beings capable of decision making and reasonable judgement, humanity must be valued. Kant proposes a test that ensures that humanity is treated with respect, and not used merely as an

I believe that the appeal of Kant’s moral theory is its direct opposition to utilitarianism. Between the two theories, I find Kant’s theory more in keeping with and useful in my daily life and that of society as a whole. I, for one, uphold the human dignity of every man and his autonomy to be self-directed and, therefore, responsible for his action. Thus, man has the ought to respect every human being as a person of moral worth and valued for what he is, regardless of his utility to us and our ends. As MacKinnon (2012) cited, “Always treat humanity whether in your person or that of another, never simply as a means but always at the same time as an end” (p. 79).