The ‘means and ends’ formulation of the Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant, the great moral philosopher, established logical principles that serve as guidelines for one’s moral actions. These guidelines are in the form of three formulations of the categorical imperative. The second of three is the “means and end” formulation, which shall be discussed in this paper.
The ‘means and end’ formulation sets the guideline for how we should treat other human beings – that is, to treat them with respect for their dignity as persons and respecting their rights in the process. This implies therefore that every human person must be treated as an end in himself and not as a means to pursue a particular end, as one would do to an instrument or tool.
Through this means and end formulation, Kant reminds us that every rational being, every human person, has dignity and worth that is the same in all persons. This means that the vagabonds on the street, the homeless children, and the disabled and non-functional persons in town have the same worth as I, a normal functioning person, have. With this guideline of Kant, I therefore cannot use the beggar on the street as my “tool” to reach my personal goal. I cannot for instance be shrewd as to use these beggars as my front and “raw materials” to solicit endowment funds to construct a building, house these “lesser” people, and package the initiative as an act of charity. If my real intention were to eventually gain monetary profit and public sympathy and fame from that “charitable” deed, then it could be said that I used other people simply as means.
But then, another angle of the illustrated situation is that it can actually be turned into a genuine charitable deed. This transformation to authentic charity lies in how I view the people as an end in themselves – that they are people with worth and dignity that deserves to be given better living conditions so that they too can experience the life worthy of their dignity.
Another situation that can illustrate this “means and ends” formulation is how I treat myself as my human dignity deserves. If I shall put myself in the shoes of the wanderers on the street and I were to find myself in such dire need for financial sustenance, treating myself simply as a means would lead me to selling my body and succumb to prostitution. However, if I have respect for my own human dignity despite my being utterly poor, I would be compelled to resort to other money-making opportunities using whatever abilities I may have. Still, the respect for one’s worth and dignity must prevail.
The importance of this “means and ends” formulation of the categorical imperative lies in the fact that if every person is to treat others as persons, then more respect and harmony would abound in society. This formulation must be the guiding principle in our daily interactions.
The difference between rule utilitarianism and act utilitarianism
Act utilitarianism is the form of utilitarian thinking wherein social values, such as rights, justice and dignity, are not considered in one’s deliberation of actions, so long as the consequence favours the happiness and the good of a greater number of people.
Rule utilitarianism, on the other hand, resorts to creating and employing a set of rules for every possible situation so that the good of more people can be achieved. This form of utilitarianism gives precedence to social rules and laws leaving no room for objective judgement and discernment. For example, when a person is accused of possessing something not his own, he would already be subject to punishment even without investigating the evidences of the apparent crime. Though rule utilitarianism was seen to facilitate ethical dilemmas like those in act utilitarianism situations, the problem of seeing all actions against the criteria of rules also becomes a concern.
Another example is the case of “mercy killing” as a response to the suffering person’s request. If a rule is established that intervening in the medical life support process is prohibited except in cases where the patient explicitly states his desire to end medical efforts, then the family and medical staff must heed the request. In this situation, the rule of giving deference to the desire of the patient has more precedence over the natural intuition to prolong the life of a loved one.
