An Elegance and Intuitiveness of Kant’s Categorical Imperative

In my opinion, the most important aspect of an ethical theory is its applicability to ‘real life’ ethical dilemmas and situations. Even beyond the obvious intellectual rigor that ethical philosophy demands, the most important test for an ethical theory must be its actual usefulness. It is not enough, in this sense, for an ethical principle to stand up only to logical scrutiny; it must also be subjected to a different kind of rigor, and that is of course the nuanced, messy reality we inhabit.

The ethical theory that I believe best stands up to this challenge is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. The aspect of Kant’s Categorical Imperative that I find the most practical for my own life is the Humanity Law Formulation. I will explain later how I use this as a method to evaluate moral dilemmas in my own life, but I find it important to explain why I am attracted to the Humanity Law Formulation in the first place.

In “The Moral Law,” Kant introduces his idea of treating Humanity as an end in itself: “[m]an and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions . . . must be always regarded at the same time as an end” (Timmons, p. 52). This is the essence of the Humanity Law Formulation, which implores us to respect the intrinsic value of humans, as a part of their existence as rational beings. I think that this kind of a moral principle is easiest to understand in its essence, and much easier to apply in practice than other moral theories. Compared to a consequentialist philosophy like that of Jeremy Bentham, it is easy to remember to treat other humans as ends in themselves and not means to be exploited for one’s own gain, instead of walking through the consequences of each individual action as we must do when we apply Bentham’s Felicific Calculus.

Kant expands on his concept of rational beings as ends in themselves later in “The Moral Law:” “These, [rational beings] therefore, are not merely subjective ends whose existence has an effect for us . . . but objective ends, that is things whose existence is an end in itself: an end moreover for which no other can be substituted” (Timmons, p. 52). To me, there are two parts of this statement that are especially important to understanding why the Humanity Law Formulation is so practically valuable. The first is Kant’s statement that humans’ value as ends in themselves exists entirely outside of our subjective judgement. This is especially important because, as humans, we tend to view the value of others through the lens of our own experience. However, with Kant’s explanation, we are given a moral framework to understand the value of the lives of others given an objective outside standard — their status as a fellow rational being. The second part of Kant’s statement that stands out is the claim that the ‘end’ of any individual rational being (human) is without an equal substitute. To say this in the context of morality suggests to me not only that no one human life can replace another (and thus that the lives of all rational beings are equal) but more importantly that there is no single goal, idea, or thing that can justify the treatment of a human as merely a means to an end.

Kant’s statements up to this point in “The Moral Law” are obviously very strong, but they are in their essence simply formal, generalized statements of the way many people already live their lives. Consider the ‘Golden Rule’ and its near-universality; to do unto others as you would have them do unto you is a basic maxim of many people’s personal moral codes, and it certainly has always been a part of mine. This is, in my view, very similar to the application of Kant’s Humanity Law Formulation. Kant states, “[T]he practical imperative will be as follows: So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only” (Timmons, p. 53, italics in original). Since no rational being would wish to be treated merely as the means to another’s end, the ‘practical’ outcome of keeping strictly to the Humanity Law Formulation results in an ethics very close to the Golden Rule. Kant does not here say that we may never use humans as a means to achieve certain ends (in fact, we often do depend on other people to achieve our goals), but he specifically argues we should not treat them merely as means to those ends. This essentially becomes the difference between accepting help from someone and taking advantage of them, as in both cases we ‘use’ another rational being as a sort of ‘means,’ however in the former case we fail to respect the humanity of the other and use them rather than rely upon them. Also important is that Kant himself says that this imperative is a practical one, more a ‘rule’ that is more immediately applicable to our real-world choices than a logical framework such as the Universal Law Formulation. Instead of being a logical system, the Humanity Law Formulation of the Categorical Imperative is a maxim in the most literal sense, a rule for actual conduct when we are faced with moral dilemmas that — of course — places the central question of humanity foremost in the discussion.

It is often easy to forget our most basic moral principles when we get caught up in the day-to-day problems and stresses of the ‘real world.’ We all likely know and believe that we should treat the ideal of humanity with reverence and treat humans with respect for their intrinsic value, but there is often pressure to ‘use’ others to ‘get ahead’ in one way or another, precisely in the way that Kant urges us not to. This is the reason why I choose to rely on a principle like the Humanity Law Formulation as, in some way or another, my own personal words to live by. Being always reminded to keep the value of my fellow humans as ends in themselves at the forefront of my ethical decision making, even when faced with the most complex problems, is reassuring and helps to keep me grounded.

Even before I learned about the Humanity Law Formulation, I always grasped on to similar ideas as the basis for my own morality, whether it was the Golden Rule or from some other source. In fact, I am reminded of a Louis C.K joke in which he leaves a rental car parked at the airport instead of returning it like he is supposed to. He finishes the joke with the realization that he could just do the same thing every time, even though it isn’t right, because everyone else usually does it the right way, and the rental place still wants their car back even if Louis breaks the rules. He goes on to remind himself that he should probably do things in a way that “if everybody acted that way, things would work out” (C.K, Live at the Beacon Theater). In a crude, sarcastic way, Louis expresses the same kind of sentiment that I find appealing about Kant’s Humanity Law Formulation. It appeals to the idea of some unconscious understanding that everyone in a way ‘knows’ the proper way to treat other people (and humanity in general) such that “things would work out” but easily get distracted by selfishness and disregard the lives and experiences of others.

In my own life, the ideas of the Humanity Law Formulation are often very useful in navigating my own personal ethical dilemmas that arise from time to time. There are often moral choices that I have to make in my life that involve the opportunity to take advantage of others, be it friends, family, or strangers. For example, I could accept help from a friend, such as allowing him to pay for my dinner because I forgot my wallet at home, and this is in a sense using my friend as a means to an end, but it is obviously not immediately immoral just to accept money from my friend. The point here is that I have an ethical decision in the way I treat my friend; I can choose to acknowledge the favor, thank him, and take the opportunity to repay him for it later, or I can neglect to thank him, allow him to pay for me, and make no effort to reciprocate his generosity. In the former case I have clearly respected his humanity and treated him as an ends in himself, thus not violating the Humanity Law Formulation, and in the latter I have ‘used’ him as solely a means to my own ends, and thus have violated the Humanity Law Formulation and acted unethically. This also demonstrates that we do not need to make ‘active’ decisions to act in a way that treats others as merely means to an end, but we can also passively accept situations in which we disregard the humanity of others and fail to treat them as their own ends.

Among all the ethical theories we have studied in class this semester, I find myself attracted to this formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative because of its elegance and its intuitiveness to my own moral compass. It is clear in its insistence that we respect the humanity of others, but also allows for a lot of nuance in our decision making in the way that we must ensure we do not use others as merely means to an end, instead of requiring us to strive towards some impossibly constant state of altruism. I also think that it is instantly understandable to me because of the reciprocity (between humans) that is inherent to the Humanity Law Formulation and the reciprocity that is the central tenet of the Golden Rule, which I was already familiar with. And, of course, I find it to be extremely useful as a moral ‘guide’ that is essentially unchanging in the face of all the complexities and nuances of living and participating in an interconnected, globalized society. I am grateful to have come to a better understanding of this principle of ethics in this course, and it will definitely continue to have an impact on me for the rest of my life.