The AskPhilosophers logo.

Philosophers

What exactly does Kant mean when he says that we should never treat anyone as a means to an end? Surely there are many situations where I am trying to choose the lesser of two evils. Take a politician for example. He has a certain amount of money to spend on some people, so anything he does will be treating someone as a means to another end, as someone will always miss out at the benefit of someone else (though notice there is no element of selfishness here). I suppose my question is, does Kant mean we shouldn't cause suffering in another for our benefit, or we shouldn't cause suffering in another for ANY end such as for the benefit of another, or does he mean something else entirely? Thanks, Holly M. Fantastic site by the way, I'm addicted.
Accepted:
March 15, 2008

Comments

Douglas Burnham
March 16, 2008 (changed March 16, 2008) Permalink

Please have a look at the question and especially the answer here:

http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/1476

It is interesting how economics in particular seems to offer the most obvious examples of how one's ends are always 'mixed'.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/2046?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org