Before I go on explaining what Kant meant by claiming that humanity must be valued as an “end in itself”; we have to go through his other claims as well to comprehend what he means by this. We all know that the only thing that matters is apparently our “good will” to be a nice person. And that “good will” should be without any incentives which Kant declares it as “moral”; and all this unconditional incitement he refers to as “priori”. But we have hardly seen any examples where actions have been taken without any motive and that is why categorical imperatives must therefore be derived as priori. According to categorical imperative in terms of the will of a rational person it means that you should treat other people like the way you want to be
…show more content…
Kant basically tells us that using people is wrong for both moral and real-world reasons. A person should not reject this rule since it would be upsetting to others. If a person gets a reputation for trying to use people, this will not help him in the long run, and it may outweigh the short term gain made by successfully using someone the first time. If you don't want something done to you that is damaging according to the universal law, then simply don't commit the act. Using people as objects causes losses in the form of time, money, and reliability. Like the example we read in the chapter that people make-up promises to other people whom they have loaned from to repay their debts, as a simple means for their own financial gain. It is seen in every human being to benefit themselves for their happiness. And that’s why Kant wants us to work for the benefit of other. If you reject all morals, a person must be willing to accept whatever people might do immoral to him. According to me, Kant lived in a different age. We can learn from him without agreeing with everything he wrote. But that is how it works with most philosophers. We’re not taught to simply accept what they said but instead we’re taught to question that and to examine their
Kant basically tells us that using people is wrong for both moral and real-world reasons. A person should not reject this rule since it would be upsetting to others. If a person gets a reputation for trying to use people, this will not help him in the long run, and it may outweigh the short term gain made by successfully using someone the first time. If you don't want something done to you that is damaging according to the universal law, then simply don't commit the act. Using people as objects causes losses in the form of time, money, and reliability. Like the example we read in the chapter that people make-up promises to other people whom they have loaned from to repay their debts, as a simple means for their own financial gain. It is seen in every human being to benefit themselves for their happiness. And that’s why Kant wants us to work for the benefit of other. If you reject all morals, a person must be willing to accept whatever people might do immoral to him. According to me, Kant lived in a different age. We can learn from him without agreeing with everything he wrote. But that is how it works with most philosophers. We’re not taught to simply accept what they said but instead we’re taught to question that and to examine their