Kant

At 398 Kant contrasts two examples of a person acting to help other people. Agree or disagree: the point made by these examples is that to count as helping other people “from duty” I must lack any inclination to help them that rests directly on my sympathy for other people or my delight in their happiness.

             I strongly agree.  The reason is that a perfectly rational person whose will has never been determined by inclination and always acts autonomously will never experience any conflict between inclination and autonomy principles.   This will is called holy by Kant.  Human beings are not perfectly rational to experience the categorical imperative as a command or as necessary.  Here, duty remains necessity of an action that comes from respect for the law which is a moral principle that is necessary as well as universal.  If the will conforms to universal practical reason, then it is good. When actions are dictated by moral principle, such a person acts acting from the standpoint of Sense of Duty.  The sense of duty actions is the only kind that possesses Moral Worth. Actions that are done from duty are those where the will is dictated by Categorical Imperative. 

            If an individual acts from a sense of duty, the person is autonomous since he will be obeying a law which he gives to himself. The will autonomy in itself has intrinsic worth. This worth is what constitutes the special Human Dignity.  Therefore, while helping others, dignity must be  "unconditional and must encompass worth. The Human Dignity of Man comes from the practical reason that allows for autonomy which makes persons worthy of respect. Hence, on must lack any inclination to help others that rest directly on his sympathy for others or my delight in their happiness. Actions to help others can be in Accord with Duty. Nevertheless, if the will is dictated by Inclination and not Categorical Imperative, the person lacks Good Will, and his action has no moral worth.  The actions similarly lack autonomy.

At 422 Kant imagines that, in trying to persuade you to lend me money, I promise to pay you back even as I know that I won’t pay you back. What maxim am I acting from? What would the world be like if everyone were to act from that maxim? What does Kant conclude about my action of making a lying promise?

            In persuading to borrow money even while knowing that refund will not be affected means that one is acting from lying maxim. In Kant’s view, it means that the person is faced with a situation where lying is expedient. Here, then, is the personal maxim for the situation:  I ought to lie in to get money to help myself and never bother to refund. At this moment, can’t   ask the person lying to universalize the Law which comes out as people ought to lie to borrow money.

            Based on Kant, this universalized version of Maxim shows that the maxim of the person borrowing money but not intending to refund is immoral. Even though the person’s maxim may appear harmless, and is, of course, beneficial to the person in the short term through extending its reach to humanity, there comes something bad (Kant 2005). If every person in the world acted in this maxim, where every person lies in all dicey situations, the world would be in trouble.  It would mean that people will use any strategy to pursue their ends hence; the world will be an immoral place where people use others as means. According to Kant, the human being as born with an intrinsic value called dignity and lying is morally wrong. According to him, one should never lie, and this has no exceptions

Imagine that all my desires are explained by natural selection—by the fact that a disposition toward desires like mine caused my ancestors to reproduce more rapidly. Suppose I know that this is where my desires come from. Suppose I also think that, when I have reason to perform some action, that’s because it satisfies some desire I have. At 448 Kant claims in effect that I’ll have a problem in acting for these supposed reasons to satisfy my adaptive desires. What’s my problem?

            Putting personal desires and acting as per the dictates of natural selection means that the person has problems. The problems are a lack of good will and reason. The issue of moral action is an issue of one class of beings. The animal consciousness, the totally sensuous being, is fully subject to causal determination.  This is part of causal chains of the world, but not the originator of causes the way people are. Therefore, right or wrong, as concepts that work to situations one has control over, do not apply.  For instance, people cannot morally fault a lion for killing the zebra, or its child. Actions from purely rational being must be in perfect accord with moral principles.  In people, being's nature to make it falter must not exist.  People are sensible and intellectual and are neither wholly dictated to act through natural impulse, nor are they free to non-rational impulse.  If a person acts with natural selection character, he will operate without rules of conduct and reason.  People must have a principle a principle that declares the way choices are made when they have the power to do so. Other creatures can be acted upon by nature, but the ability to choose the standard to guide our actions makes people actors.  People must not act through natural selection but rather exercise their will and reason to act. At 448 Kant says that one will have a problem in acting for from natural selection perspective because he will make other suffer including dying to achieve the ends.

A person C hires a person W to spend the day picking fruit in the orchard that C owns. W does the work only because she knows that C will pay her a wage if and only if she works, because she needs money to buy the goods that meet her basic needs, and because she has no other way to get money. C offers the wage so as to bring it about that, motivated in this way, W will do the work. Bringing W to do the work maximizes C profits, and C acts exclusively to maximize her profits.

Does C treat humanity in W merely as a means or also as an end? (ii) Bonus question: to be answered if it seems helpful and if at (i) you said: “merely as a means.” Could it happen that C hire W in the same situation but manage to treat W’s humanity as an end?

            First of all, it is very difficult to have a good life unless it is a meaningful one. At the same time, it is impossible to have a meaningful life without meaningful work.  From my personal view, C treats humanity in W merely as a means. The reason is that W does not feel that she has work worth doing. W finds that her work is something to which she dedicates many of her waking hours but holds little meaning. To her, working is merely a means to an end, where she suffers through her jobs in the hope of getting time for things that matter more. In this respect, she works just to meet the basic life needs.  W finds her work as simply something to be endured and not to own. C has nothing to make the work meaningful for   W.  As an employee; C appears to think that paying W is reason enough for W to perform at her best. On the contrary, extrinsic motivation only goes so far. It never makes people become highly engaged or become creative.  In this scenario, the employer ‘mission statement fails from the fact that the whole relationship focuses solely on shareholder value, market competitiveness staying profitable.  Hence, C as an employer’s treats humanity in W as a means which doesn’t inspire W. Philosophically, the term a means to an end is any action undertaken for the sole purpose of achieving something. In this respect, C uses W just to make profits and does nothing to elevate the living standards of W.  It is incurred that all actions are means particularly in relevance to life meaning. Just like Kant's morality theory, the categorical imperative, I take C as an immoral person from the fact that he uses W merely as a means instead of under all circumstances treating W as an ends.  Good employment relations must contrast utilitarian view, which allows using of people as means to benefit the shareholders.

            I strongly see a possibility of C hiring W in the same situation but manage to treat W’s humanity as an end. C can b treated as an end to make her view the job in a positive way. Seeing her work as something to own can improve productivity. W must also come up with motivating strategies that can go beyond work relationship.  It is said the W always work because missing to work means lacking basic needs. W needs to take up the role of helping C to address such personal issues so that C can positively concentrate at work. In work environment, people’s work lives are enriched when they feel they are making progress on work that is meaningful. This means that they become happy when they feel they are making a difference in their world. This concept is reinforced by Scott Keller and Colin Prince book called ‘Beyond Performance.' When employers give their employees some sense of meaning in work, it becomes important for employees and critical in building a healthy work environment. Meaning is important because when employees find it in work; they feel a sense of ownership.  It means that their work holds something more to them personally. And when people take work ownership, they become committed, more intrinsically motivated as well as highly more engaged leading to better performance. Hence, C can invest in “meaning amplification” by tapping in his quest to sustain his employee’s engagement. C will be strongly engaged in her work when she perceives it as serving each of her goals in a particular way. In this respect, C can communicate to W on how her work contributes to meaning. Often, a well-articulated mission statement is the place to start. Hence, C can treat the humanity in W by inspiring and nurturing her human spirit. Build healthy working environment, be concerned on her good being, avoid unnecessary harm to her and use the work to inspire and implement solutions to environmental crisis.

Does W treat C’s humanity merely as a means?

            From the above case, C offers the wage for W to work.  It is also said that W does the work only maximizes C profits, and C acts exclusively to maximize her profits. From my personal view, W treats humanity in W merely as a means. The two parties are in to solve their personal needs. Just like C, W treats the humanity in W as a means.  There is no attachment to the job, and the work can only be done when payments are there.  This means that W has not owned the job responsibility and neither does she have any personal meaning to work.  Taking employers as means to an end can easily lead to compromise of processes just to make money. W cares nothing about C. what she wants is money to meet her life needs. W has not taken the work positively and it true that if she can get better opportunities she can leave. Hence, both W and C treat humanity in each other as means and not end. 

References

Kant, Immanuel, and Lara Denis. The Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.            Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press, 2005. Print.

Sherry Roberts is the author of this paper. A senior editor at MeldaResearch.Com in customized term papers if you need a similar paper you can place your order for article critique writing services.