(1) State and explain the first version of the categorical imperative (CI).

Categorical imperative represents an action as itself objectively necessary, without regard to any further end: You ought to do X.
The principle of the categorical imperative is as follows:
Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

(2) State and explain the second version of CI.

Act in such a way that you treat humanity not using your own body or any other person merely as a means.

(3) Why, according to Kant, can morality not be rooted in happiness or pleasure?

According to Kant, morality can not be rooted in happiness or pleasure because happiness is subjective and can vary from experience to experience. Moreover, we should not value rightness by the outcome because we can not estimate precisely the effects of the consequences of our actions on the greatest happiness of the greatest number.

(4) What is a maxim? Explain how maxims work.

A maxim is a subjective principle of action.

Take any possible case of human relation, in which one has to decide his/her behavior, in the general form A does such and such a thing to B. Now the moral question is “Should A do this to B?” According to Kant, A’s answer cannot depend on A’s pleasure, or desire or utility but rather A has to give an abstract general sensible account of his/her situation with reference to B and then work out a general rule of how anybody in the same situation ought to behave. This is a maxim.

All maxims have:

  1. A form
    Maxims must be chosen as if they were to be applied as universal laws of nature.
  2. A matter
    A rational being as an end in itself must serve every maxim as the limiting condition restricting the pursuit of all merely relative and arbitrary ends.
  3. A complete determination
    All maxims which stem from autonomous lawgiving are to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends and with a kingdom of nature.

For Kant, our reason enframes the autonomy of the will that gives us the perception of the world in terms of lawful imperatives. However, it is not clear how reason makes us fulfil our moral duties. Does reason motivate us to do our duty? If not, what exactly compels us to do a dutiful action against inclination?

(5) Explain what it is to use someone as a mere means?

To use someone as a mere means is  using a person for one’s own purposes in such a way that that person would not agree with such treating and so he can not himself share the end of action. 

(6) Explain the difference between using someone as a means and using someone as a mere means.

  1. When we use someone as a means we do not perceive this person as an intrinsic end rather as a relative end for the sake of other ends or goods. Nevertheless, in this case I share with him the end of the action and he agrees with my inclination ( using a service of seller ).
  2. Using somebody as a mere means is like using him as a device without agreement; often this kind of action includes harms and deceit ( making a false promise ). When we act on such maxims, we treat others as mere means, as things rather than as ends in themselves.

(7) What are some examples of actions that use others as mere means?

Making a false promise, attacks on the freedom and property of others.

(8) Explain the differences between the greatest happiness principle and the categorical imperative.

The greatest happiness principle is an example of the non-moral impreative ( hypothetical ) which consists in making actions to fulfil our desires. The scheme of the actions is as follows: If I want X, I do Y.

Categorical imperative represents an action as itself objectively necessary, without regard to any further end: You ought to do X.

(9) Could there be situations in which a Utilitarian might find it justifiable to use a person as a mere means? Explain with an example.

In the utilitarian society the actions are justifiable as far as they produce the greatest happiness of the greatest number and diminish its reverse. Hence, using somebody as a mere means is admissible if your actions increase the greatest good. For example, the Nazis declared that they would burn all the village if the inhabitants did not reveal where the commander was hiding. The inhabitants handed over the commander to the Nazis. The end of the story is that all the inhabitants are alive and the commander is dead. Even though the commander was used as a mere means, this action of the inhabitants is justifiable according to Utilitarian principle. By sacrificing only one person, the whole village was saved.

(10) Could a Kantian find such a situation when using a person as a mere means is justifiable?

For Kant, using somebody as a mere means is inadmissible because human beings should be treated as ends in themselves. However, in a situation where you should lie to a killer to save somebody, a Kantian would probably accept a lie supposing that we should apply the universal law to each specific maxim. In this particular situation, a Kantian would probably accept living in a world where everybody lies to a killer.

(11) What is the source of our moral status for Utilitarians and Kantians?

The source of our moral status for Utilitarians is the consequences of action.

For Kantians the moral status is defined by our will.

(12) According to O’Neill, is it possible that a society of Kantians might produce a world with less overall happiness than a society of Utilitarians?

According to O’Neil it is possible that a society of Kantiants might produce a world with less overall happiness than a society of Utilitarians in famine situations. She gave an example of famine times where coercing and deceiving can be necessary for survival of the current generation. For Kantians these actions would be considered immoral and unjust. Kantian principles may require a generation of sacrifice. They will not require one to seek to maximize the happiness of starving generations but only to establish the modest security and prosperity needed for meeting present obligations.

Even though there might be some cases where Kantian maxims produce bad results, these results are exceptions and not the rule. For our intentions reflect what we expect the immediate results of our action to be. Kantians will not cause harms that they can foresee in their intentions. However, if we are talking about long term consequences, we cannot be sure that Kantians might produce a world with more overall happiness than a society of Utilitarians.

(13) Can’t I be a do-gooder who always tries to do my duty but creates misery instead?  For example, say that I’m running around campus taking cigarettes from the mouths of students, passing out anti-smoking pamphlets.  I’m only trying to help people.  It doesn’t matter if I get restraining orders against me, beaten up, fired, etc. – I’m supposed to have a good will even if I’m annoying.  Does this sound ethical?

I think Kant would say that if everybody acted in accordance with duty but against inclination then few smoked because smoking is not fully a moral action in terms of universal law and intrinsic value of human being. Or at least nobody would restrain this person from fulfilling his duty and his action would be considered absolutely ethical.

(14) How can Kant deal with this hard case? It’s 1939, and you’re hiding Jews in a cellar.  The Nazi’s come to the door and ask you if you’re hiding Jews in a cellar. Should you lie to Nazi’s?  Is this a good objection to Kant?

Kantians would say that I should not lie because a lie is not morally justified according to the maxim which obliges us not to use persons as mere means. Kantians could also say that Kant meant to apply the universal law to each specific maxim. So, I should ask myself if I could live in a world where everybody lies to a killer. If yes, then my lie is morally justified. Even if this case is exceptional, it shows a breach of the doctrine which can be used by critiques to say that in the end the Kantian moral theory is just a disguised Mill’s utilitarianism. If I lie to save somebody and it is morally justified for Kantians, then what Kantians do is just producing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of persons regardless of using somebody as mere means.  

(15) According to Kant, we only have a duty to treat rational moral agents as ends, not animals.  What about chimps that have 99.4% of our DNA structure?

Animals can be ends in themselves due to their reason and this does nothing to the way in which we should treat humans.

Bibliography:

  • Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals in Ethics, Edited by Steven M. Cahn, Peter Markie, Fifth Edition, Oxford University Press, 2012.
  • O’Neill, Onora. (1985) “A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics.” Excerpted in J.E. White (ed.), Contemporary Moral Problems (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.).