Philosophy’s goal is to find a theory that acts as a guideline on how we, as humans, should act. Before Kant’s theories, philosophers struggled to find a moral rule or principle on how we should act towards other humans. Nevertheless, Kant came up with the Principle of Humanity to act as a main principle on how we should treat humans. The Principle of Humanity states that humans should treat other beings as an end and never as a mere means. To understand this theory, we must understand what Kant means by treating someone as an end, and also what it means to treat another as a mere means. Treating a human as an end would be to treat that person with the respect he or she deserves. Furthermore, treating someone as a mere means would be to use
…show more content…
Kant implies that any being that has autonomy and rationality should always treat others with autonomy and rationality as an end. Yet, Kant doesn 't clearly state how people are supposed to treat other humans as an end. The Principle of Humanity doesn 't give us a road map on how to apply a moral action. Kant would most likely reply to this response by saying that people have autonomy and rationality and should know what the moral action of a situation is. Even with Kant’s response, there are still many situations that we might not be able to determine what the moral action is. The Principle of Humanity is vague when it comes to how we treat others to an end. For example, an autonomous and rational human named Tim buys an American flag at Wall-Mart. A week later Tim is about to start a bonfire with some friends and realizes that the only way to get the fire started is to burn that American flag. Tim burns the American flag and has a good time with his friends. At the same time, soldiers in the army are dying in the Middle East fighting in battle. Is Tim not giving those soldiers the respect they deserve by burning the flag? Or is it morally acceptable to burn the flag? This is a situation where the Principle of Humanity does not give a clear cut
Kant implies that any being that has autonomy and rationality should always treat others with autonomy and rationality as an end. Yet, Kant doesn 't clearly state how people are supposed to treat other humans as an end. The Principle of Humanity doesn 't give us a road map on how to apply a moral action. Kant would most likely reply to this response by saying that people have autonomy and rationality and should know what the moral action of a situation is. Even with Kant’s response, there are still many situations that we might not be able to determine what the moral action is. The Principle of Humanity is vague when it comes to how we treat others to an end. For example, an autonomous and rational human named Tim buys an American flag at Wall-Mart. A week later Tim is about to start a bonfire with some friends and realizes that the only way to get the fire started is to burn that American flag. Tim burns the American flag and has a good time with his friends. At the same time, soldiers in the army are dying in the Middle East fighting in battle. Is Tim not giving those soldiers the respect they deserve by burning the flag? Or is it morally acceptable to burn the flag? This is a situation where the Principle of Humanity does not give a clear cut