Immanuel Kant believes that we act wrongly when we treat people merely as a means and not as an end in itself. According to Kant, “every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means to be used by this or that will at its discretion.” Every person is a rational being who can make his/her own choices. This makes everyone intrinsically valuable because everyone has his/her own free will. As a result, people should not be used merely as tools so that others can achieve their own objectives. People are valuable because of their will and intellect; they are not to be used just so that they can serve other people. In order to treat someone as an end in itself, we need to ensure that he/she fully understands the circumstances surrounding any arrangement. The person needs to be able to make an informed decision. Therefore it is morally wrong to treat someone as a mere means because it violates his/her intrinsic value. The morally correct action would be to treat the person as an end in itself and tell the truth to allow the person to make his/her own decisions. As a general rule, “act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.”
Onora O’ Neill is a prominent scholar of Kant’s moral philosophy. To many people Kant’s moral theories are extremely complicated and difficult to understand. This led O’ Neill to write A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics. In this essay she attempts to provide readers with a simplified account of Kant’s moral ethics. According to O’ Neill, to use someone merely as a means is to “involve them in a scheme of action to which they could not in principle consent.” In this interpretation of Kant’s vie...
... middle of paper ...
...n the surprise then it is morally wrong to deceptively force him/her to participate. The intrinsic value of his/her free will is ignored in order to forcibly surprise him/her. To counter the surprise party example, Kant could respond by asking, “what if the person does not want a surprise party? What if the person had other plans and the surprise party infringed on these plans?” Since the person was manipulated and was not able to make an informed decision, he/she is being used as a mere means to further someone else’s goal. Despite the well-intentioned behavior of the individual it is still not morally permissible to use a person as a mere means to achieve a goal. Therefore the previous counterexample is not an effective counter to Kant’s claim. It is still morally wrong to use anyone as a mere means, regardless of any altruistic nature and not as an end in itself.
Kant believed consequences were irrelevant and an individual should do as they please at that very moment in time. An example would be a person went to their neighbor’s home while they were gone to turn on the heater so when they returned home it was warm. A consequence to turning on their heater is their house burned down, but according to Kant, since your intentions were good you cannot be at fault. Kant also believed each person has dignity and not to treat others as a means, to one’s personals ends (Rich, 2008). In other words, do not treat others as an instrument to achieve a goal. For example, a researcher that is risking the well-being of an individual participating in an experiment for the sake of finding a drug that may save many lives.
According to the Central Brain Tumor Registry of the United States (CBTRUS), the incidence rate of all primary malignant and non-malignant brain and central nervous system tumors (CNS) for 2005 to 2009 was 20.6 cases per 100,00 (7.3 per 100,000 for malignant tumors and 13.3 per 100,000 for non-malignant tumors) (Fig. 1) [1].
There are two main categories of brain tumors as to the seriousness; Malignant, and Benign. A Malignant tumor can grow and spread aggressively, and overpower other healthy cells by taking their space, blood, and nutrients. A Benign tumor is less serious than a Malignant, however, it can still cause many problems in the brain by pressing on nearby tissue. They are typically slow growing and rarely spread to other parts of the body. Benign brain tumors can be considered Malignant if they are located in areas of the brain that control vital functions like breathing. Unlike benign tumors, the cell structure of a malignant brain tumor is largely different than normal brain cells. Malignant tumors tend to grow faster and can be more invasive than benign tumors. They are also are life threatening. Tumors are classified as grades one through four. The more aggressive a brain tumor is, the higher the score. Another type of tumor is the pituitary tumor. A pituitary tumor is an abnormal growth of cells in the pituitary gland. It’s about the size of a pea and it’s located at the center of the brain behind the nose and eyes. "Malignant and Benign Brain Tumors."
Immanuel Kant is a philosopher of the early centuries, one of his well-known works is his moral theory which can be referred to as Deontology. The moral theory arises from the principle behind Deontology which is derived from -deon which signifies rule or law and -ology which means the study of. Kant designed his moral theory to be contradictory to utilitarianism which is a moral theory that focuses on the outcomes of an action. Beside other factors the moral theory is a non-consequentialist moral theory which in basic terms means the theory follows a law based system of making judgements and disregards the consequences. Kant once said “Actions are only morally good if they are done because of a good will” however, for Kant a good will is complex
Immanuel Kant was German philosopher who was an influential figure in modern philosophy since he was one of the first to analyze the process of thinking. Kant was not only just a prominent figure in philosophy, but contributed greatly in metaphysics, epistemology, and aesthetics. Some of his major works were the Critique of Pure Reason, Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics, Critique of Practical Reason, and Critique of Judgement. His form of ethics or philosophy is known as Kantian Ethics which are mostly based off of deontology, which is the ethical position that judges an action based on its morality and not the consequence. Like any philosophy on ethics, there are pros and cons to it and we will analyze them. I personally believe that
Kant opens up Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals by saying, “Nothing can possibly be conceived in the world, or even out of it, which can be called good without qualification, except a good will,” and it is with this sentence that he introduces his idea of non-consequentialism (p. 151). Non-consequentialism can be described as a philosophical theory that states that the morality of our behaviour does not depend on the consequences of our actions, but instead depends on the intent with which we perform these actions. With this piece of writing, Kant attempts to delve deeper into the principles of human morality, discover what makes an action right or wrong, and determine the correct motives for performing any action.
Overall Kant’s concepts of ‘The Good Will’ and ‘The Categorical Imperative’ can be applied to any situation. His ideas of moral law, good will, duty, maxims, and universal law all intertwine to support his belief. As a whole his concept enables the Kingdom of Ends, which is the desired result of the morality of humanity. Everyone is to treat everyone based upon true good will actions instead of personal gains, this way no one gets used. In all Kant trusts if this is achieved there will be universal peace across humanity.
Kantians believe that we should avoid treating others as mere means.(877) In other words we should not make false promises, physically force a person to do what we want, use threats, or take advantage of someone’s desperate situation and make unjust offers.(877-878) These are examples of treating people as mere means because these people will not have the opportunity to make a reasonable choice for themselves. Either because they don’t have the complete information, their wellbeing is on the line, or simply because there is no just offer on the table. We are also to treat others as an end in themselves(878), meaning that we have to respect their autonomy, and their freedom to make choices for themselves. But according to O’Neil it’s not enough to treat others as an end in themselves. In her duty of beneficence she argues that we cannot treat others as end in themselves if they have limited rationality or autonomy (878-879). She derives her idea from Kant’s idea of imperfect duty which aims to promote helping others to reach their potential.(). Therefor based on these principles it makes sense for us to help reduce world famine, because the people affected by this issues are very venerable, and their autonomy is undermined. The only way to ensure that they are treated as rational human beings is if we helped them. It’s important to
Immanuel Kant’s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals explores themes of morality and its application to rational beings. Rationality, to Kant, includes a necessary commitment to morality, wherein failing to be moral is simultaneously a failure to be rational. Within this work, Kant proposes a concept that he entitles the “Categorical Imperative”. The Categorical Imperative is essential in the exploration of morality in the rational being, and, as with morality, is dependent solely on reason alone. The Categorical Imperative, as illustrated by Kant, is an unconditional law of morality that must be obeyed in all circumstances, separate from condition or character. As such, the Categorical Imperative serves a supreme principle of morality in
Over the course of this essay, I will present the reader with information on Kant’s Deontology, including, but not limited to, explaining how Immanuel Kant discerns what is morally right and morally wrong. I will then apply these criterion to case number two, and attempt to accurately portray what Kant’s Deontology dictates is the morally correct response. Following this determination, I will show the reader that although Kant’s moral reasoning will lead us to a definitive answer, we should not be so quick to accept it. Interestingly enough, he seems to lead us to what would generally be the correct answer, but perhaps not in the given circumstance and not for the right reason.
When applying Kant’s theory one also has to take into account the two aspects in determining what exactly the right thing in any situation is. They include universality and respect for persons. Universality states that you must “act only on that maxim which you can at the same time will to be a universal law”(Manias). Respect for person’s states that one must “act so that you treat humanity, weather in your own person or that of another; always as an end and never as a means only” (Manias). With this being said one must apply both of these to any option they are
People face ethical choices every day, and there are several different approaches towards reaching a decision. A professor is tasked with making a decision as to whether he should report a high-achieving student, Charlie, for plagiarizing an article. The professor must use reasoning and ethics. One of the most famous form of ethics is Kantian ethics, which is a form of deontology, or duty-based ethics. The professor can use Kantian ethics to make his decision, or he can take into account the context of the situation to further asses as I would do.
Overall, I think that Kant’s first proposition to morality is a good one, it makes sense that our actions should have moral worth because we do them because they are in accordance to duty and we feel we have a duty to even if they go against our desires. I believe the sympathetic person’s actions do not have a moral worth since they do kind things from the natural qualities that they possess of kindness and compassion. People should be encouraged to help their fellow citizens and have such qualities, but doing so does not have moral worth unless it is from the motive of duty, if not it is just in accordance with duty.
On the contrary, Kantian ethics value every individual rather than the majority. This theory holds that every human has rights and an action is wrong if it violates them. Kant’s second version of the categorical imperative states “Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.” (O’Neill 400) This states that you can not use people in a way that they would not consent to. Kantian ethics also state that
Symptoms of brain cancer include (most common) difficulty walking, seizures, weakness, headaches, vomiting, blurry vision, and changes in alertness or mental capacity. None of these symptoms in combination can predict a diagnosis of brain cancer. There are, however, multiple other ways to diagnose brain cancer. Beginning with an interview...