X-VMS-To: in%"ethics-l@polygraf.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 5 Apr 1992 05:45:00 EST
From:         JIM DOWNEY <JDOWNEY@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>
Subject:      Response to Richard Lee on Kant's Categorical Imperative in
              Ethics.
Comments: To: ethics-l%polygraf.bitnet@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

Richard Lee quoted and wrote:

>>Kant's moral (categorical) imperative is impractical and unworkable.  In

>	I'd like to defend Kant here.  One formulation Kant offers of
> the categorical imperative is this:  "Act always in such a way that
> you treat rational beings always as ends in themselves and never
> simply as means" (loose translation cum interpretation).

First, welcome to the discourse... Always glad to have another
"voice."

In fact some of Kant's formulations work, but his ethical system, as
depicted by the WHOLE of the conceptualization he offered, is flawed and
impractical...  It fails to work in many situations and provides for weak
analysis of the issues in both the empirical and philosophical approaches.

>	This seems to me very workable and practical.

If you isolate a single postulate of his ethical system, it may work
and work consistently.  But it seems to me that there is a process
underlying Kant's approach, even in this single strand of the whole
rope...  Kant tells us how to act...  He does not tell us why this is
or is not ethical (nor can he using his system).  He tells us what not to
do, but not why on that point either...  In typical German/Bavarian
tradition of his day, he sets forth rules, which for the most part fit in
with his cultural references, but never explains the principles or truths
that make these rules ethical.

> Kant is not guilty of telling one to be morel "wtihout every defining
> what way that mgiht be."  Kant says to treat persons simply as means to
> an end (much as you might treat a TOOL) is wrong.  One treat people as things
> (or persons, rather) valuable in themselves.

And while I can agree with Kant's mandate not to treat persons simply as a
means to an end, it can be shown why, in keeping with the nature theory
approach, that this type of act (a behavioral approach to ethics?) is "bad."
It can be show to diminish the person's vision or choice, it can be shown
to violate inherent rights, and it can be shown to breach fundamental laws
of nature, all of which ultimately detracts from the greatest good.

> Now exactly what sorts of behavior might be treating people merely
> as means may vary from society to society, and even from case to case.
> Do employers treat their programmers merely as code-generating machines,
> or do they recognize that they are human beings worthy of respect?
> That's the issue.

The Kantian mode of applied ethics asks only if there is a behavior that
fails to meet Kant's basic rules...  It does not allow the question, "Are
human beings worthy of respect?"  Nor does it allow asking if the employer
recognizes that the worker (in this case programmer) is worthy of respect...
It merely states that treating a worker as a means to an end is morally
wrong.  Kant points to a duty without ever demonstrating why there exists
an imperative to act this way.

Again, welcome to the debate :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU