Table of Contents |
A maxim is a subjective principle that guides an agent’s action. Kant defines it as “a subjective principle of volition” (or will). By this, he means the idea behind an action, like “stealing is the taking of property that is not mine.” What matters is the maxim and whether you acted out of respect for moral demands in keeping with it.
Consider these examples.
If you carry out a maxim, you’ve realized it in an act. Since Kant doesn’t think morality depends on whether or not you achieve your purpose, he doesn’t evaluate the action. Instead, it’s the maxim that’s evaluated. To evaluate a maxim, you need to see how it fits with the categorical imperative. If it violates the categorical imperative, it’s impermissible (that is, it’s wrong to do); if it doesn’t, it’s permissible (that is, it isn’t wrong to do). We discuss this method as testing a maxim against the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is not hypothetical as it does not depend on any desired outcome. It is categorical because it applies to all rational beings, regardless of their ends.
"All imperatives command either hypothetically or categorically. The former represents the practical necessity of a possible action as a means to achieving something else that one wills (or that it is at least possible for one to will). The categorical imperative would be that which represented an action as objectively necessary of itself, without reference to another end. Immanual Kant | Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals"
As we’ve seen Kant believes that there is only one categorical imperative, but it can be expressed in multiple ways. We call these ways formulations. In this tutorial, we are focusing on the second formulation of the categorical imperative.
As we’ve discussed, the idea of a categorical imperative is quite difficult to grasp, whereas it’s fairly easy to think about a law or rule that applies to specific people.
EXAMPLE
You know that a driver should follow the rules of the road or that doctors should obey the command to help the sick (that is, they should uphold the Hippocratic Oath).But what does a demand or imperative look like when it’s not relative to the person following it? In other words, what are the rules or laws that everyone should follow?
Kant was aware of this difficulty, so he gave different formulations of the categorical imperative to make it easier to understand. Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative is known as the formulation of humanity, or the ends/means formulation. It provides a powerful moral test—does your maxim respect the dignity of others as rational beings?
This formulation emphasizes that it is wrong to treat another person merely as a means to an end. Kant does not say that one can never treat another as a means (indeed, we do so all the time in cooperative activities) but that we must also respect their rational agency and autonomy. To treat someone merely as a means is to bypass or override their ability to make informed, rational decisions. To get a better idea of what this means, let’s look at an example of not respecting humanity.
IN CONTEXT
Imagine you work at a café and a customer, Jordan, leaves behind a high-end pair of headphones. You notice it and realize you could sell it online for a good profit. You decide not to report the lost item and instead take it home.
In this case, you are treating Jordan merely as a means to your own financial gain. You are disregarding Jordan’s status as a rational being with ends of their own (such as retrieving their property) and using their misfortune purely to serve your own purpose.
Now, contrast that with a different scenario: You find the pair of headphones and turn it in to lost and found. You still might hope that Jordan will reward you or that you’ll feel good about doing the right thing, but you are not using Jordan merely as a means to your gain. You are respecting their humanity by acknowledging their right to their property and their capacity to make decisions about it.
Kant’s principle is not that we can never involve others in our plans or benefit from interactions with them. Rather, it is that we must never treat others merely as tools, ignoring their dignity and rational agency.
You might be wondering, “Is humanity really so important?” Kant says it is because it’s needed for a good will, which is more important than anything else. A good will (that is, a will that intends what’s right) is more valuable than, say, good talents or good fortune. That’s because, no matter how good your talents are, they aren’t always good. Talents and fortunes are conditionally good, but a good will is good in itself.
EXAMPLE
Someone might intend to use their surgical talents to give people lifesaving treatments, but their intention might change at some point. They might later intend to use this skill to torture people instead.Talent isn’t inherently valuable, because its value depends on something else: the purpose you use it for. Only good will has inherent value since it doesn’t depend on something else for its goodness. You couldn’t have a good will if you didn’t have humanity.
Since human capacities or humanity are needed for a good will, they are just as valuable. This is why Kant thinks you should respect humanity in addition to good will.
Kant explicitly claims that the second formulation of the categorical imperative (the formula of humanity) is equivalent in meaning to the first formulation (the formula of universal law). While they differ in emphasis and language, both express the same fundamental moral principle: Rational beings must act only on maxims that respect the dignity and moral worth of others.
Here’s how Kant puts it.
"The ground of all practical lawgiving lies (in accordance with the first principle) objectively in the rule and the form of universality which makes it fit to be a law (possibly a law of nature); subjectively, however, it lies in the end; but the subject of all ends is every rational being as an end in itself (in accordance with the second principle)."
Looking more closely at these two formulations, we can see how they relate to each other. The formula of universal law focuses on whether a maxim can be willed as a universal law (that is, whether it can be consistently adopted by all rational agents). The formula of humanity focuses on whether a maxim respects the humanity in others (that is, whether it treats others as ends in themselves, and not merely as means). Kant argues that both formulations lead to the same moral conclusions.
EXAMPLE
A maxim that involves lying cannot be universalized (failing the first formulation), and it also treats others merely as tools for deception (failing the second).The equivalence shows that universalizability and respect for people are two sides of the same coin. To treat someone as an end-in-themselves is to act on principles that could be shared and endorsed by all rational beings, which is precisely what universal law requires. Again, Kant is providing one categorical imperative, which he states in multiple manners (formulations).
Now, let’s try to apply this formulation. First of all, you need to identify a maxim. Then, you need to see if that maxim treats humanity merely as a means or if it also treats humanity as an end-in-themselves.
EXAMPLE
Say your maxim is, “When I’m struggling with my studies, I will ask a friend to talk me through their notes.”Your intention here would be to use your friend to help you understand what you’re studying. Since you do nothing to limit your friend’s rational or moral capacities, you also respect their humanity as an end. Therefore, it’s permissible.
Now, let’s see what happens when we change this maxim.
EXAMPLE
Say your maxim is, “When I’m struggling with my studies, I will blackmail my friend for their notes.”In this case, you don’t allow your friend to decide to help you on their own. Instead, you make them do it by threatening to do something bad to them. So, you don’t respect their humanity as an end in itself. Therefore, it’s impermissible.
Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative, the formula of humanity, is not confined to Groundwork. It is a foundational principle that recurs throughout his moral philosophy, especially in Critique of Practical Reason and Metaphysics of Morals.
In Critique of Practical Reason, Kant reinforces the idea that rational nature itself is the condition for moral law.
"The moral law is holy (inviolable). A human being is indeed unholy enough but the humanity in his person must be holy to him."
This passage deepens the idea that humanity must be treated with reverence, not merely respected. In Metaphysics of Morals, Kant expands the practical implications of this principle.
"To annihilate the subject of morality in one’s own person is to root out the existence of morality itself from the world, as far as one can, even though morality is an end in itself. Consequently, disposing of oneself as a mere means to some discretionary end is debasing humanity in one’s person . . . to which the human being . . . was nevertheless entrusted."
This reiterates the central claim of the second formulation: Every rational being possesses intrinsic worth and must never be treated merely as a tool for someone else’s purposes. This includes even oneself.
Source: THIS TUTORIAL WAS AUTHORED BY SOPHIA LEARNING. PLEASE SEE OUR TERMS OF USE.
