Second Formulation of the Categorical Imperative:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity –
whether in your own person or that of another-
never merely as a means but always as an end-in- itself.
Our discussion of Kant’s idea of “mere means” in his second formulation of the Categorical Imperative has left me asking why there are some actions that treat others “merely as a means”.
Our example for the mere means versus means to an end distinction was shown by the waitress and whether we use her as a mere means or as a means to an end. When we ask the waitress of a margarita (using Dr. J’s example) we are using her as a means to an end but not as merely a means. This is so because we recognize her as a person but not as an object thus not merely as a means.
Let's apply this same idea to our class discussion of modern day slavery cases. I will preface that I am not, in any way, trying to justify our actions in relation to forced labor. So, when it comes to forced labor, we claimed in class that it is not moral for us to be buying Iphones just because we think that we need them even if we contribute to continuing the cycle for forced labor. We are using forced laborers merely as a means as opposed to means themselves.
Is the only reason that we do not use forced laborers as means and they are treated merely as means because we do not know the people or their personhood? We are able to see that we do not use the waitress as a mere means because we know her as a person and can identify her personhood. If we are able to recognizes another as a person, he or she is no longer an object, thus is not treated merely as a means. However, there are people who even after knowing a person still treat that person as a mere means ( as we said in the second part of the waitress example in class).
Thus, I am wondering how the recognition of personhood impacts the mere means versus the means to an end idea? Do you think that identifying a person and recognizing his or her personhood is the defining line between treating another as a mere means versus a means? Lastly, are there some actions that will always lead to treating another merely as a means versus a means to an end regardless of recognizes his or her personhood?
I think that although it is often hard to draw the line between using someone as a means to an end and using someone merely as a means to an end, the presence or absence of respect can help. With the waitress, we respect that waitressing is just her job, not her entire life. We may even be able to relate to her, perhaps from having had a similar job. While direct interaction is not necessary to garner this respect, it definitely makes it easier to. With the sweat shop workers, our only conception of them is as their job--a means to our iphone. We are unlikely to be able to relate to them, and in buying our iphones we show that we don't respect their needs (such as a livable wage). Thus, in order to use someone as a means without robbing them of their personhood, we must respect them
ReplyDeleteWe use each other as means to our ends all the time. We ask a friend to drive us to the airport, of a relative to lend us money. These things promote our own ends. However, this is different from using someone as a mere means. To do this, we are using an individual to promote our own end in a way to which that person could not possibly consent. To treat a person as a mere means is to violate the dignity that every individual possesses.
ReplyDelete