Kantian Ethics

“Autonomy is the power to rule over oneself and one’s acts” if we are coherent and able then what kind of responsibilities does that bestow on us as free people (Panasiuk, 49). Should we simply use our abilities for our own gain or, as Kant argues, should we take into consideration others around us and their desire to be treated with respect? Kantian ethics is realistic as well as morally justifiable in the world because it takes into account human dignity and our desire for autonomy as being large parts of human nature. Kant argues the idea of maxims as basic ethical laws that lay the ground work for autonomy and his concepts function because there are no exceptions to maxims and everyone must treat each other fairly. But in order to justify your actions in a certain situation Kant has established Categorical Imperatives and principle of respect.

The Categorical Imperative is essentially the basis of Kant’s moral theories. “Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ tell us how to rationally evaluate our maxims (principles of action)” (Panasiuk, 47). An example of a maxim would be: I can steal. Then using Kant’s universalization test we can see that this personal rule would not pass the test because you would then be treating the people you are stealing from as a means-to-an-end. For example, you walk into a store and see something you want but you have no money. With Kant’s Universalization Test you would ask yourself, what would happen if it was alright for everyone to steal? No one would pay for anything; people would stop selling because there would be no way to make a profit. If it would not make sense for anyone else to steal, then why should you. Kant makes it clear that “in order to exercise our own human dignity and recognize the dignity is to set aside our own interests, inclinations, and desires when we make a moral decision” (Panasiuk, 44). Using this method of evaluating our decision is how Kant shows us the way in which we can respect others and their sense of dignity as well as our own. This brings us to the principle of respect for persons.

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in our own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” (Panasiuk, 47). Would treating another human being as an object or possession seem like the “right” way to base your decisions? Going back to the theft example you would be using the store owner as just a means-to-an-end. You would also be treating the other customers who would then have to pay higher prices because you refused to pay at all as means-to-an-end. Kant explains that because we are humans and therefore autonomous (which refers to self-ruling) it is important to respect the autonomy of others around you.

Kant works in the real world on the basis of I-will-respect-you-if-you-respect-me. In order for people to coexist we need to establish what is right and wrong and how our decisions affect others. Although this would seem to be a fairly universal concept the methods that Kant uses to evaluate decision (the Universalization test) have often come under scrutiny. The first of the arguments opposing Kantian Ethics is the unpleasant nature of completely giving yourself over to the service of others. How could that be a life at all, only living to give your time effort to doing what’s right? This is a very pessimistic manner of approaching Kantian ethics. Yes, you are giving up your own desires and inclinations in order to do the right thing but you must also look at the entire concept from the other person’s point of view. How would you appreciate being treated without respect or autonomy? Would you not find it unfair and unnecessary to be treated in such a manner? No one wishes to be looked at like a possession or item. The clearest example of this is slavery. Kant’s approach to ethics brings to light what happens when you sacrifice the dignity and autonomy of other in exchange for your own desires and interests. In extreme cases the result is slavery. Even though it may be a slight inconvenience to consider others on such a regular basis it is even more unpleasant to become someone’s means-to-an-end.

Kant works on an everyday playing field through the use of test that applies to everybody. There are no exceptions; everyone must abide by the same rules making it easier to follow. Many see this as what they consider to be little room for cultural mediation and variation when it comes to maxims and the concept of respecting others. But it can also be argued that respecting another’s right is universal. The United Nations and its Universal Declaration of Human Rights proves that there is a very fundamental basis for respecting another person’s right, their autonomy, and their freedom. When considering the universality of maxims such as lying, stealing, and killing overall, when looking at any country’s judicial system, lying under oath is wrong, stealing is illegal, and killing gets a long term in jail. You would be hard pressed to find a people who disagree with these basic rules. Perhaps most humans share a fundamentally similar ethical code when it comes to respecting others and there really is no need for cultural mediation and variation when it comes to the maxims.

After considering the alternatives it would seem almost natural to respect the autonomy of others. Kant simply gives us a way of determining, through the use of maxims and Categorical Imperatives, what will be respecting others and what will be treating them as means-to-an-end. Kantian ethics are an effective way of evaluating our daily choices and living our lives in a way that will not affect others negatively.


Works Cited

Panasiuk, Elizabeth. “Custom Courseware; Phil 101 Q1/R1”. Student’s Union. Edmonton: University of Alberta, 2006.


PLease rate and review work. I got a C+ for this waste of space and I would really be interested (other than the obvious flaws) how to improve on it.