ipl-logo

Kant's Principle of Humanity: The Second Categorical Imperative

817 Words4 Pages

"Act that you use humanity, whether in your person or in another, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means." This is the translation of Immanuel Kant 's second categorical imperative which was also known as 'Mere Means Principle ' or 'The Principle of Humanity '. This principle put forth by the great philosopher attempts to give us parameters on, when using people is justified and when it is not. Using other people for our personal benefit cannot be justified morally. Their desires, wishes and intentions also need to be taken into consideration and need to be given equal weight like ours. It is essential for us as human beings to honour their humanity which places limits on what we can do to …show more content…

When we think of using human beings as means to an end we need to keep two things in mind, would we be wanting them to treat us the way we treat them and does humanity permit us to use them. In the case of bombing Hiroshima and killing non combatants it would be substantive to give a thought to the innocent civilians who were killed along with the non combatants and would the Americans want to be killed in the same manner as they did in order to end the war. Such extreme measures cant be morally justified as they are inhumane and abominable. The Americans used the Japanese to end the war and in the process killed a large number of non combatants who may not have anything to do with the war. This is an act of injustice, it is unfair to the innocent people who were killed. Rationality and Reasonableness also come into play here. When we talk about human beings we mean rational beings and “treating them as ends-in-themselves" means respecting their rationality. The reasonableness of a person would not allow him/her to manipulate and use people for his/her purpose, no matter how good and noble the purpose maybe. If we use people for our purpose it defeats the idea of the purpose being 'noble ' in the first place. Thus it is not

Show More
Related
486 Words | 2 Pages

Is it justifiable to kill in order to get revenge and peace? The death of Matt and Ruth’s son, Frank altered their lives. Losing their son put them in a dark place taking an enormous toll over their profound emotions. The hatred for Richard Strout, grew stronger daily. The story “Killings” Author Andre Dubus displayed disputes with the values of compassion, courage, and fairness.

Read More
617 Words | 3 Pages

In the year of 1945, the U.S. had dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, causing a lot of damage. The U.S. was justified when dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima because the Japanese was already ready to surrender and the japanese was already defeated, so there was no point. The bomb killed so many lives that shouldn't have been taken. Thousands of innocent people died or got wounded very badly, which was very unnecessary. Some people even became really sick as well, which was completely unnecessary.

Read More
1039 Words | 5 Pages

Murdering an individual is never justifiable. Never. Death rips families apart, destroys bonds, and terminates love. Soldiers get hurt, physically and mentally, and killed. Think about all the children that are witnessing their friends and family die because of the wars.

Read More
486 Words | 2 Pages

The idea of being equal with all other members of the community was appealing to many people. “He replied, “The one who treated him with mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.” (Doc. A) Jesus told man to treat others with mercy, the idea of being a good person, and the value it held in Jesus’s eyes.

Read More
246 Words | 1 Pages

But also it made people feel more peaceful and full to themselves. Document B sites “...(W)hoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy…, shall be deemed to having killed all mankind;..”

Read More
849 Words | 4 Pages

Millions upon millions of innocent people have been killed due to unjust reasons. Across the world multiple groups of people have been executed, tortured, or arrested for reasons like racism, sexism, ageism, and hating against one's religion. Some of the mass executions and public scares went on for a couple months however others lasted years. Most of them lasted until someone did not agree with what executioners were doing. Some examples of mass executions and public scares were the Salem Witch Trials, The Holocaust, The Great Purge, and the after effect of the Attack on Pearl Harbor.

Read More
875 Words | 4 Pages

After the Pearl Harbor bombing, the U.S. wanted revenge on Japan so they unleashed a nuclear bomb which killed millions more in Japan compared to the casualties in Pearl Harbor. The book To Kill A Mockingbird by Harper Lee shows many examples of why revenge and hatred should never be justified. First of all, Bob Ewell is a great example of why you must control your

Read More
448 Words | 2 Pages

But actually, it is a very brilliant and basic principle to uphold. If a person were to go around being formidable and uncivil, most likely they would not receive any kind of positive attention from anyone but people just as discourteous as they are. Another phrase that seems redundant is “You must learn to love yourself before you can love others.” That is another good principle that is often taken for granted ad nauseum. In Native American culture, you must love yourself and everything else in creation to truly achieve wicozani which means wealth by living a life in mental and physical harmony with the world.

Read More
514 Words | 3 Pages

Different perspectives on the US decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II are how immoral it was to do. In Document 4 from 1945, it states, “This is a crime against God and humanity which strikes at the very basis of moral existence,” The author explains how heinous the idea of dropping the bomb was. Any one with morals would be against such thing because of the destruction one bomb can make and how it can annihilate anything in its path. It was pure cruelty to drop a bomb that powerful on any one, it wasn’t war or murder it would be consider nihilism because of destruction that occurred. Another perspective was of a GI soldier, in Document 5 and how the bomb was a relief to soldiers and their family.

Read More
1064 Words | 5 Pages

“…We have perfected our weapons”, as Pope Francis said in St. Peter’s Square, “our conscience has fallen asleep, and we have sharpened our ideas to justify ourselves as if it were normal we continue to sow destruction, pain, death. Violence and war lead only to death”, which is why it should not be our only answer to all conflicts. At the time brutality may seem right, but later on people will suffer major consequences as referenced by Abigail, who falsely accused many who were executed, forcing herself to flee the country. In Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, people are falsely accused for crimes they would never come commit, yet they are found guilty based on the words of a minor. War is an unnecessary form of violence especially when it comes to the environment of children because in countries like Syria, child refugees are lacking education that is necessary for them to survive.

Read More
1448 Words | 6 Pages

The end would defy self-love and self-preservation so Kant permits no exceptions because the act of killing will never become a universal law of nature (Friend, 2011). However, Kant believes that autonomy is the soul core of human dignity (Kant, 1785). Killing people typically violates a person’s autonomy, but not upholding their

Read More
890 Words | 4 Pages

The end does not justify the means. This was the principal ethical theory of Immanuel Kant and made up his ‘Categorical Imperative’, a deontological argument which showcased how certain actions are fundamentally wrong, such as murder, lying or torture and can therefore, never be justified. Contrastingly a utilitarian would claim that the ends do in fact justify the means and would enact a focus on outcomes in deciding whether or not an action is morally permissible. In 2002 Jakob Von Metzler, a boy of just twelve years, was kidnapped and a police officer threatened the kidnapper, Magnus Gafgen, with torture in an attempt to find and save the child. Gafgen told the officer that he had killed the boy and then disclosed the location of the body.

Read More
582 Words | 3 Pages

Using Kant’s notion of a maxim it would be wrong to cheat on the final exam in a course that you do not like and feel you will not benefit from. In the book it stated this, “Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) argued that lying is wrong under any circumstances. He did not appeal to religion; instead, he held that lying is forbidden by reason itself” (Rachels 129). This shows that no matter what the situation may be that lying is looked down upon. He believed that every rational person should believe the Categorical Imperative.

Read More
1228 Words | 5 Pages

In addition, he believes that “we just have to check that the act we have in mind will not use anyone as a mere means, and, if possible, that it will treat other persons as ends in themselves” (O’Neil, 2008, p. 113). This principle acts as a moral code implying that one should never treat a person merely as a means to an end. Overall, Kantian ethics focuses and recognizes the importance of the value of humanity. His categorical imperative ultimately leads to a “kingdom of ends,” in which norms that deny the value of humanity are not permitted. In my opinion, it would be difficult to disagree because most individuals value their own life.

Read More
871 Words | 4 Pages

Immanuel Kant’s moral theory differs greatly from the other theories we have learned about, especially Mill’s view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is based on the consequences of actions, while Kantian Ethics focuses on the intentions a person has before they act, and if they are fulfilling their duty as a person when acting. Kant explains his theory by providing examples of different people who are all doing the same action, but for different reasons. He discusses a store owner who charges everyone equal prices and explains that this only has moral worth if he is acting from duty, meaning he does this because it is what is right. The act is not moral if he acts in accordance with duty, or because he is worried about his reputation or business.

Read More

More about Kant's Principle of Humanity: The Second Categorical Imperative

Related Topics

Open Document