Rational Beings In Immanuel Kant's Work

The categorical imperative, which treats people as ends in and of themselves rather than as means to a goal, is a Kantian idea that has a direct bearing on this conundrum. Kant wrote, "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always

A Kantian view on ethics prescribes that a person should act in such a way that if all people acted that way it would be okay. For example if you gave your promise to do something, you would always keep it because if everyone broke his or her promises it would defeat the purpose of a promise. He also believed that reason alone should be able to reveal what the ethical decision should be. Another view of Kants’, states that you should never treat people as a means to an end, but rather, as an ends in themselves. This means that we cannot use people in a manner in which we would not wish to be used.

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

7. Kant’s ethics gives us firm standards that do not depend on results; it injects a humanistic element into moral decision making and stresses the importance of acting on principle and from a sense of duty. Critics, however, worry that (a) Kant’s view of moral worth is too restrictive, (b) the categorical imperative is not a sufficient test of right and wrong, and (c) distinguishing between treating people as means and respecting them as ends in themselves may be difficult in practice.

The Kantian Theory can be defined as a moral or “humanitarian” theory. It utilizes the categorical imperative which says “never use a person as a mere means but always as an end”. According to Kant, intrinsic value is a person’s rational capacity, in which he views humans as rational beings that should use reasoning to determine what is right from wrong.

Kant’s first formula: “The Formula of Universal Law: ‘Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law’ [Groundworks 4:421; cf. 4:402].” (Wood, A.W. 2005, p.135) This formula states that one should act in such a way that other people will learn from this action. That one is not to act in a way in which one would not be willing to allow others to act, for example expecting others not to lie, then one is required to do the same. Kant’s second formula: “The Formula of Humanity as End in Itself: “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always at the same time as an end, never as a means’ [Groundworks 4:429; cf. 4:436].” (Wood, A.W. 2005, p.135) In other words this formula means that “Human beings have absolute worth, and every maxim we adopt should lead only to actions that always treat humanity, whether ourselves or others, as ends in themselves, and never simply as means to achieving our own ends.” (Mills Daniel, D., Mills Daniel. D.E. & Daniel, M. 2011, p.161) This categorical imperative simply states that people should always treat others with dignity, as an end and never use them as simple instruments. Kant believes that the consequences of an action are not what make it right or wrong, but that when doing

In Kant’s deontology, he talks about the “kingdom of ends” and mentions how people should act as they and everyone else are treating each other as ends. You cannot act on a rule that believes people don’t treat others as ends in themselves. The kingdom of ends is an example of the state under the rule of law. An individual and his rights are the most important. In this framework, a person, who does not respect another human, does not contain respect for the law since in the “the kingdom of ends” it is every single individual that is the end in himself.

Kant’s first version of the Categorical Imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law” (Immanuel) This is Kant’s absolute moral law. It is often cited as the golden rule as well. Per Kant, one has an obligation to act on this axiom, and if one does they are morally correct. However, Kant also defined another form of the Categorical Imperative referred to as the Humanity Formula: “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.” (Immanuel) This second formulation does more to specifically define what Kant saw as universal law. A human is never to be used only as tools (means), and in fact, should be respected equally for their own motives. (Kerstein) A human as defined by Kant comes to “humanity”. That is to say, the traits that make us intrinsically human, such as a free will. (Johnson and Cureton)

While Kant’s ‘Humanity-as-an-End-in-Itself’ theory and utilitarianism are not mutually exclusive ideas, they are fundamentally different. In Kant’s ‘Humanity-as-an-End-in-Itself’ theory, a right action is right only if the action uses humanity as an end never as a means. That is a complex way of saying, people are not objects, therefore you cannot morally use them as if they were object. Utilitarians on the other hand do no necessarily care how you treat people. Utilitarians believe an action is right if

In addition to Kant’s explanation of the immature man, Habermas presents a compelling argument as to why citizens prefer kitsch. Habermas illustrates a shift from a culture-debating society to a culture-consuming one by demonstrating a new desire for leisure time. Habermas explains that, “The public sphere in the world of letters was replaced by the pseudo-public or sham-private world of culture consumption”(160). Culture consumption replaced the public sphere, which housed an integral part of society, public debate. According to Habermas, debate is one of the most important parts of a thriving society because citizens must discuss and form opinions together in order to inform public opinion.

People have an intrinsic worth above mere things or possessions. In order for people to cohabitate peacefully and respectively, there’s a need for universal laws based on good will and absolute moral beliefs. It is this moral belief which is based on reason and must be uniformly abided by. This allows humanity to function as an amicable society; an amicable society that is achieved by treating ourselves and others with respect and dignity. Immanuel Kant’s theory known as the categorical imperative expressed an absolute belief in universal moral laws which enables humanity to be treated well. (Rachels EMP 129 & 139)

In Kant’s vast and dense collection of philosophy, there lies an entire moral code for people to follow. As one of the last traditional philosophers, Kant builds his tremendous philosophical system from the ground up, particularly discussing morality as it applies to people. Kant’s categorical imperatives, just one aspect of his moral law, applies to all situations and commands absolute authority. Kant formulates his moral code in several ways. First, he says to act as if the maxim of your action were to become a universal law of nature, and also to act in such a way that one never uses his or herself or any other person simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end. Kant flagrantly demands that people must not exploit one

Kant wants us to support the dignity of each human being and that everyone is owed a level of respect because of these traits and that rationality and autonomy supports this. he began to make sense of a number of deeply held moral beliefs.

Kant said that you should never treat people as a means of some ends. People should always be treated as ends in themselves; it promotes equality among human beings.

Kant's idea seems to be that we treat someone as an end only insofar as we act toward him or her in a way that he or she can understand as appropriate or justified: we should be able to explain our reasons in such a way that the person will see the reasonableness of acting in the way we propose. Thus, for example, Kant writes: "he who is thinking of making a lying promise to others will see at once that he would be using another human being merely as a means, without the latter at the same time containing in himself the end. For he whom I propose by such a promise to use for my own purposes cannot possibly assent to my mode of acting toward him, and therefore cannot himself contain the end of this action.”