Discussion Assignment

Video - Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2

Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2 (Links to an external site.)

Hello, and welcome to this video on Main Ideas in Kant, Part 2! 

Overview

This video covers the last parts of the reading by Kant, starting with the paragraph that begins, “Now I say: man and generally any rational being.” 

I also posted notes on Main Ideas in Kant, Part 1, so please take a look at those before continuing on. 

We have already covered the first form of the categorical imperative in those notes, so this video will go on to consider concepts related to the second form. Much of this comes from the reading, while I have also added a few details based on Kant’s other writings. 

Persons and Things 

Kant distinguishes between two categories, the category of persons and the category of things. 

He defines persons as rational beings, such as humans

And

He defines things as non-rational beings, such as plants, animals, rocks, machines, etc.

The word “rational” means “having reason,” so Kant believes that humans are distinct from everything else in nature because we have reason and can use this to learn about the world, set our own goals, and make decisions based on them.

Kant is drawing a clear line between rational beings and everything else. He believes that plants, animals, and non-living things do not possess reason, which is why he places them in the category of things.

Now, this distinction between persons and things plays a major role in the rest of Kant’s ethics.

Kant believes that ethics concerns how we treat other persons. Moreover, he argues that it is fine to use things in various ways for our benefit, or for the benefit of other persons. So, he views plants, animals, and non-living things as resources to be used for the benefit of persons.

The Second Form of the Categorical Imperative

Kant presents his general ethical theory in a famous statement called the categorical imperative. Kant actually gives three forms of the categorical imperative in his work. The one we will focus on in this video is the second form, which is the last sentence before the endnotes in our reading.

Here, I will rephrase it slightly:

The second form of the categorical imperative tell us to always treat persons (ourselves and others) as ends in themselves, and never treat persons as means only.

To understand this, we are going to need to define a few terms.

We have already discussed the fact that, for Kant, the word “person” means “rational being,” such as a human being. Now,

To treat someone as an end in themselves, according to Kant, is to respect and support a person’s chosen goals, as long as these are moral.

On the other hand, 

To treat someone as a means only is to use a person in ways that frustrate their chosen goals.

For example, if your goal is to become an Olympic swimmer, I could treat use you as an end in yourself by referring you to a good coach, or teaching you things that will help to improve your swimming. On the other hand, I would treat you as a means only if I broke your arm, or lied to you about which coaches are good, in order to gain an advantage for myself.

We might ask how this form of the categorical imperative relates back to the first form, covered in the earlier notes. The connection here is not entirely clear, but Kant may think that the second form of the categorical imperative captures the kinds of maxims that rational beings could will as universal laws. In addition, Kant seems to endorse this form of the categorical imperative since it stresses the importance of respect for persons’ free will and reason, which according to Kant is also the basis of ethics. 

Helping and Hurting People

We could say that the second form of the categorical imperative tells us to help, and not to hurt, people. In other words, it breaks down into two parts: 

The first part—always treat persons as ends in themselves—tells us to help people to achieve their chosen goals.

The second part—never treat persons as means only—tells us to never hurt people by frustrating their pursuit of their chosen goals.

There are many ways to help people, and Kant acknowledges in parts of the text we have not read, that we have some discretion in how we choose to treat others as ends in themselves (to help others) as long as we are making a good effort.

However,

Kant believes that the instruction to never hurt people by treating them as means only is absolute.

He says that we should never do things like murder, lie, steal, or kidnap, since these undermine the goals of other people who are just as rational and worth of respect as we are. 

Now, what about a situation where the two parts of the categorical imperative seem to conflict, because the only way to help one person is to use another person as a means only? 

In these cases, Kant does not believe in hurting one or more people to help others. Here, he would say that the part of the categorical imperative that instructs us to never treat persons as means only takes priority. This is because, as I just noted, Kant allows some flexibility in the ways that we might help people, while the duty to never treat persons as means only is absolute. 

If the only way to get a friend out of trouble is to lie to his or her spouse, Kant would say, “Don’t do it.” Similarly, if the only way to protect a village from a terror attack is to kidnap a child, Kant would say this is still wrong. A famous and controversial aspect of Kant’s view is the claim that we should never, no matter what, hurt people in ways that violate the categorical imperative.

Kant’s View as an Ethical Theory

Thinking back to the notes from an earlier lesson, we can see that the categorical imperative is an example of an ethical theory. Whether or not we agree with it, it is a general account of what makes any action right or wrong, and so satisfies the definition of an ethical theory that was presented in an earlier note. For any possible action, we can look and see whether it conforms to the categorical imperative. 

We can also see that the categorical imperative is very different than cultural relativism. Kant does not believe that ethics is determined by what is socially approved in a given culture.

Rather, he believes that the categorical imperative applies to people in every culture. Since humans all around the world are rational and set goals for themselves, there are certain ways of respecting people that he believes should apply in every culture.

Kant and Human Rights

Now, let’s turn to the second part of this video and discuss for a few moments the topic of human rights.

Human rights are of course a major topic in contemporary ethical discourse, and we can note how Kant’s views have influenced the idea of human rights in a few ways.

1. First, discussions about human rights tend to assume that there is something special about humans, and that humans should be respected in certain special ways. This relates back to Kant’s distinction between persons and things.

2. Second, defenders of human rights usually assume that rights apply to everyone throughout the world, and try to secure certain human rights for people in every culture. This relates back to Kant’s rejection of cultural relativism.

3. Finally, human rights typically concern helping, and not hurting, people in ways that relate to their goals. This relates back to the teachings of the categorical imperative. For example, the right to life, the right to free speech, and the right to property connect to the idea not treating others as means only. In a related way, the right to education and the right to health care connect to the idea of treating other people as ends in themselves.

There are ongoing debates about what counts as a human right, whether rights are absolute, and how best to promote human rights throughout the world. Still, in the background, we can see that the idea of human rights is influenced in some important ways by the teachings of Immanuel Kant.