Kant's Categorical Imperative

After laying out his most widely known iteration of the categorical imperative, [“Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Kant 37)], Kant establishes some universal laws that follow from it. In light of his previous discussion of the importance of good will—namely that a good will is the only thing good without limitation, Kant additionally considers the relationship between our will and the universal laws that spring from the categorical imperative. Kant suggests the will “as a faculty of determining itself to action in accord with the representation of certain laws” (45) and makes a distinction between means and ends. Rational beings, for Kant, are to be treated as ends in themselves. That is to say, it is …show more content…
For, they themselves are ends and to use them in this manner is degrading and a violation of the duty toward others. This principle seems intuitively correct. Within literature, daytime soap operas, and even every day life, there exists a recurring plot point of somebody becoming upset with another for “using them.” Whether it is for personal gain or any other ulterior motive, there is a sense there is something wrong with “using” another person. Yet, Kant runs into problems with his definition of what constitutes somebody worth this sort of consideration. By defining beings worthy of this moral consideration in terms of their rationality, Kant runs into the issue of marginal cases. Not all human beings can be considered rational in terms of reason and autonomy—some may be born with some sort of mental handicap, and others may grow senile from old age or disease. Yet, according to Kant’s definition of beings worthy of this moral consideration, neither of these cases can be considered “ends in themselves” and it would consequently be okay to use them as means to an