Question: Can we distinguish between using a person as an end in itself from using a person as a means to an end?
Main Position: Yes, we can distinguish between using a person as an end in itself and using a person as a means to an end.
(First level of reasoning)
Main Reason 1 According to Kant, morality should be based on categorical imperative.
Main Reason 2 The focus on intentions to see if an action is moral or not.
Main Raison 3 Rejection of the consequentialist theories including common good and ethical egoism.
Definition of major term(s)
According to Kant, ‘using a person as an end in itself’ implies that the fact of existing give us value. This also highlights the idea that we should not use people for our own benefits, …show more content…
There are two versions of the categorical imperative, and each one emphasizes a different aspect of the categorical imperative. But each of these versions is merely a different way of expressing the same rule. The first one is about the universality of rules, which stresses the importance of always acting in such a way that we would be willing for it to become a general law, and that everyone else should do the same thing in the same situation. This means that a rule should apply to everyone including me, otherwise it is not a valid rule. For example, if I wonder whether I should break a promise, I can test if this is right by asking myself whether I want it to be a universal rule …show more content…
Actions can be judged singularly on their moral worth, however, in order to give a more complex look into the action a moral agent would take his intentions into account. The basis of moral actions are born within intentions. Imagine that you’re driving a car, while being slightly over the speed-limit, on a straight length of road. It’s 6 AM in the morning, and you’re the only one on the road. You’ve done the same route many times before, and you’ve never run into trouble even though you were exceeding the speed-limit. But this morning, your front wheel hits a rock, and you lose control of the car. The car turns around and around, while there is a bus coming. You crash into the bus, and hit two school boys. One is now seriously injured while the other got killed outright. How can we judge this action? Is it something wrong? Or can we just say that ‘it was an accident’? Certainly, the action resulted in, someone suffering (the two school children, their families, friends, and so on. But it is not the same as killing these people by shooting. You were driving along, and due to terrible circumstances, you injured strangers. Should you be punished for what you did? Should you pay for the injury and death caused? According to Kant’s theory, we should base ourselves on the intentions, did we meant to kill a school child and seriously injure her friend? Or did it happen due to reasons entirely beyond our control – the rock
Main Position: Yes, we can distinguish between using a person as an end in itself and using a person as a means to an end.
(First level of reasoning)
Main Reason 1 According to Kant, morality should be based on categorical imperative.
Main Reason 2 The focus on intentions to see if an action is moral or not.
Main Raison 3 Rejection of the consequentialist theories including common good and ethical egoism.
Definition of major term(s)
According to Kant, ‘using a person as an end in itself’ implies that the fact of existing give us value. This also highlights the idea that we should not use people for our own benefits, …show more content…
There are two versions of the categorical imperative, and each one emphasizes a different aspect of the categorical imperative. But each of these versions is merely a different way of expressing the same rule. The first one is about the universality of rules, which stresses the importance of always acting in such a way that we would be willing for it to become a general law, and that everyone else should do the same thing in the same situation. This means that a rule should apply to everyone including me, otherwise it is not a valid rule. For example, if I wonder whether I should break a promise, I can test if this is right by asking myself whether I want it to be a universal rule …show more content…
Actions can be judged singularly on their moral worth, however, in order to give a more complex look into the action a moral agent would take his intentions into account. The basis of moral actions are born within intentions. Imagine that you’re driving a car, while being slightly over the speed-limit, on a straight length of road. It’s 6 AM in the morning, and you’re the only one on the road. You’ve done the same route many times before, and you’ve never run into trouble even though you were exceeding the speed-limit. But this morning, your front wheel hits a rock, and you lose control of the car. The car turns around and around, while there is a bus coming. You crash into the bus, and hit two school boys. One is now seriously injured while the other got killed outright. How can we judge this action? Is it something wrong? Or can we just say that ‘it was an accident’? Certainly, the action resulted in, someone suffering (the two school children, their families, friends, and so on. But it is not the same as killing these people by shooting. You were driving along, and due to terrible circumstances, you injured strangers. Should you be punished for what you did? Should you pay for the injury and death caused? According to Kant’s theory, we should base ourselves on the intentions, did we meant to kill a school child and seriously injure her friend? Or did it happen due to reasons entirely beyond our control – the rock