Immanuel Kant's Principle Of Humanity Analysis

In order to effectively illustrate Immanuel Kant’s formulation of the Principle of Humanity, I will be providing a brief definition of the positive thesis of the doctrine and several pieces of background terminology. In the following article “The Kantian Perspective: Autonomy and Respect” by Shafer-Landau, he states a simplified definition of the formulation of the Principle of Humanity: “always treat a human being (yourself included) as an end, and never as a mere means” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 22). In this definition of the Principle of Humanity, to treat someone as an “end” means to treat them with the respect that they deserve as a human being. It is crucial to note that in the Principle of Humanity, the properties that an individual must possess for them to be worthy to be treated as an “end” is both the capability to be rational and autonomous. However in contrast, to use a person as a “mere means” is to disrespect their autonomy and rational capabilities and utilize them specifically for your own personal benefit. It is crucial to note that the Principle of Humanity distinguishes a “mere means” from a “means”. For example, if I were to respectfully use the services provided to me by a grocer at my local super-market by being kind, courteous, considerate, etc, then I would be treating them as a “means”, but still as an “end” or a rational and autonomous being. However, if I were to rudely disrespect and interact with the grocer singularly to accomplish my goal at the supermarket as if that was the only purpose they were useful for, then I would be treating them as a “mere means” of accomplishing a personal goal. In summary and layman’s terms, the simplified version of the Principle of Humanity as reformulated by Shafer-Landau states that to treat someone fairly and morally means to always treat them as an “end” and/or as a “means”, but never only as a “mere means” to increase personal benefit. Part B:. If I were to argue against Kant’s simplified version of the Principle of Humanity as reformulated by Shafer-Landau, I would claim that the argument suffers from the ability to recognize any sort of non-rational or non-autonomous human being as an individual worthy of being treated as an “end”. For example, a baby is neither fully autonomous nor a completely rational individual, and as a result, the Principle of Humanity would regard any infant to be non-deserving to be treated as an “end”. Similarly, this same logic would apply to any other sort of individual who lacks either rationality or full autonomy over their mind such as a mentally disabled person or an animal. If this were truly the case then in accordance to the Principle of Humanity, it would be morally permissible to treat infants, disabled persons, …show more content…
However, if I were Kant, I would claim that the Principle of Humanity can indeed account for the infants and other mentally disabled persons. Firstly, Kant makes it clear that regardless of whether a person is a rationally autonomous agent, Kant considers the life of any human to be “infinitely precious” (Shafer-Landau 2010, 23), therefore, if a rationally autonomous person should always be treated as an “end” then so would any infant or mentally disabled person due to their equivalent value. Secondly, infants and mentally disabled people still have the potential and capability to become fully rational autonomous agents in the future. For example, babies eventually will develop into full grown adults and possess the ability to resist temptation and hold responsibility for their actions. In addition, mentally disabled people always have the possibility of curing the source of their mental illness or at least reducing the quality of their mental disabilities through the assistance of therapy and medical drugs in order to become autonomous and rational agents. Lastly, although people share a close fondness to their animals, I would argue that the Principle of Humanity need not be able to account for animals as creatures worthy of being treated as “ends” because they possess neither humanity nor are they rationally autonomous agents. Similarly to how we use livestock as “mere means”, pets or other animals share the same property as being non-rational and non-autonomous agents. The view or idea that the Principle of Humanity has to account for animals as creatures worthy of being treated as “ends” is only caused by people 's’ personal attachment to animals and provides no reason why they should be worthy