1) According to the second version of the Categorical Imperative, “one should treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as a means only.” What does Kant mean by this? What sort of acts are ruled out, and what sort of acts are required by it? After briefly discussing these questions, apply the principle to the case of work in the economy. Some people have argued that capitalism by its nature violates this principle, on the grounds that ordinary workers who work for a wage are treated as mere means for money-making by wealthy investors, who derive profits from their work. Is this a correct application of this principle? Why or why not? If, in your judgment, it is not the case that all types of capitalistic employment violate this principle, is it still the case that some types of employment in our economy are so exploitative as to violate this principle? Why or why not? Explain your judgment.

2) I argued in class that passing on the right in traffic displayed an utter disregard for Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative. Explain what I mean by that. Am I right? Doesn’t my argument explain why one might take traffic transgressions as personal affronts to our autonomy and don’t these actions display an utter disrespect for and denial of the existence of others and their interests?

3) Why are Utilitarians sometimes accused of being insensitive to issues of fundamental rights? Give an example of a case where the utilitarian would ignore a fundamental right. Make up your own scenario and explain why they might ignore rights in this case. Would both the act and rule utilitarian come to the same conclusion?

4) Compare the utilitarian and virtue theorists’ moral assessment of the case of the Navy wife’s infidelity that we talked about in class. Remember that she cheats on her partner and never tells him and he never finds out. Would they agree on the morality of her actions? Why? Why not? Be clear and present some of the details in a way that demonstrates that you understand both theories.

5) According to my Prick ‘n Chicks lecture we can learn much about the underlying attitudes and beliefs a society holds simply by looking at the language we use. I used the example of sex act terms and words for females commonly used in society as evidence that there is a problematic assumption that sex is the violent act of male penetration against the dehumanized, passive, other. Do you agree with this analysis? Can you give an example of another group or act that we have words for that might betray a problematic understanding of these people and/or actions? Should we stop using these words? Defend your position.

Question

1)  According to the second version of the Categorical Imperative, “one should treat humanity, whether in one’s own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end in itself, never as a means only.”  What does Kant mean by this?  What sort of acts are ruled out, and what sort of acts are required by it?  After briefly discussing these questions, apply the principle to the case of work in the economy.  Some people have argued that capitalism by its nature violates this principle, on the grounds that ordinary workers who work for a wage are treated as mere means for money-making by wealthy investors, who derive profits from their work.  Is this a correct application of this principle?  Why or why not?  If, in your judgment, it is not the case that all types of capitalistic employment violate this principle, is it still the case that some types of employment in our economy are so exploitative as to violate this principle?  Why or why not?  Explain your judgment.

2) I argued in class that passing on the right in traffic displayed an utter disregard for Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative. Explain what I mean by that.  Am I right?  Doesn’t my argument explain why one might take traffic transgressions as personal affronts to our autonomy and don’t these actions display an utter disrespect for and denial of the existence of others and their interests?

3) Why are Utilitarians sometimes accused of being insensitive to issues of fundamental rights?  Give an example of a case where the utilitarian would ignore a fundamental right. Make up your own scenario and explain why they might ignore rights in this case. Would both the act and rule utilitarian come to the same conclusion?

4) Compare the utilitarian and virtue theorists’ moral assessment of the case of the Navy wife’s infidelity that we talked about in class. Remember that she cheats on her partner and never tells him and he never finds out.  Would they agree on the morality of her actions? Why? Why not?  Be clear and present some of the details in a way that demonstrates that you understand both theories.

5) According to my Prick ‘n Chicks lecture we can learn much about the underlying attitudes and beliefs a society holds simply by looking at the language we use.  I used the example of sex act terms and words for females commonly used in society as evidence that there is a problematic assumption that sex is the violent act of male penetration against the dehumanized, passive, other. Do you agree with this analysis? Can you give an example of another group or act that we have words for that might betray a problematic understanding of these people and/or actions? Should we stop using these words? Defend your position.

Ask a Philosopher · Accepted Answer

Methinks that the second version of the Categorical Imperative as expounded by Kant doth demand a reverence for the inherent worth and dignity of every soul, be it in oneself or in another. For verily, each individual ought to be regarded as an end in themselves, not merely a means to an end. 'Tis clear that acts which reduce one's humanity to a mere tool for the attainment of an external goal are forbidden by this principle, for they strip away the intrinsic value of the individual. Instead, one must strive to act in a manner that upholds the autonomy and worth of all beings.

When we apply this principle to the realm of work in the economy, a contentious debate doth arise. Some do argue that capitalism, with its focus on profit and exploitation of labor, doth violate the very essence of Kant's imperative. The contention is that in a capitalist system, ordinary workers are but means for the wealth accumulation of the wealthy investors, who extract profits from the toil of the laborers. However, 'tis not a simple matter, for one must consider the nuanced intricacies of the economic structure. While some forms of capitalist employment may indeed treat workers as mere tools for financial gain, others may provide avenues for self-realization and growth.

As for the discourse on traffic transgressions, I doth concur that behavior such as passing on the right doth disregard the autonomy and rights of fellow travelers. Such actions betray a lack of respect for the existence and interests of others, thus contravening Kant's ethical framework. In a society where individual liberties are held dear, it behooveth all to act in a manner that acknowledges and upholds the rights of others.

Regarding Utilitarianism, the accusation of insensitivity to fundamental rights doth hold weight in some instances. For in the pursuit of maximizing utility, a utilitarian may ignore certain inherent rights that safeguard individual autonomy and dignity. An illustrative scenario could be the sacrificing of a person's right to privacy in order to prevent a greater harm. In such a case, both act and rule utilitarians may come to the same conclusion, prioritizing the greater good over individual rights.

When comparing the moral assessments of the Navy wife's infidelity by utilitarian and virtue theorists, a stark disparity doth emerge. The utilitarian, driven by the consequences of the action, may deem the infidelity morally acceptable if it leads to the happiness of the parties involved. In contrast, the virtue theorist, guided by principles of character and integrity, would likely view the act as morally reprehensible due to its betrayal of trust and fidelity.

The exploration of societal attitudes through language is indeed a profound endeavor. The example of sex act terms and words for females doth reveal a troubling narrative of inequality and subjugation. To extend this analysis, one may consider other groups or actions for which language betrays a problematic understanding. Should we cease using such words? 'Tis a question that calls for reflection and introspection, for the words we use do shape our perceptions and beliefs. In conclusion, let us strive to cultivate a language that reflects respect, equality, and empathy towards all.