For Kant there is only one categorical imperative even though it can be expressed in different ways.

Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.

On the face of it the two formulations don't look very similar and there is some debate as to whether they can be made to say the same thing.

It helps to remember that Kant wanted morality to have a single underlying principal. For Kant that underlying principal was that morality was simply acting in accordance with reason. The first formulation emphasises that acting rationally means avoiding contradictions. It isn't possible to be both rational and also someone who accepts a contradiction. The second formulation involve recognising that others are rational beings. Remember Kant's argument that the only thing that is good in itself is the good will. The good will is one that acts out of duty and in this context acting out of duty means in accordance with reason. The good will is something that resides in rational beings and that is why rational beings have intrinsic value and must be treated as ends in themselves and never simply as a means.

If the two formulations lead to different results then that would show there is something wrong with the way the categorical imperative has been formulated. We saw with the application of the two formulations to the issue of suicide that it isn't always obvious that the two formulations do lead to the same result.

Furthermore, we can ask what happens if the second formulation is fed into the first formulation. Suppose the maxim of my action was to treat somebody as a means only in order to achieve something. Can I imagine a world where everybody treated others simply as a means? Yes. The maxim passes the contradiction in conception test. This is a problem. To be consistent with the second formulation we want the answer that we have a perfect duty not to treat humanity simply as a means but we would only get this answer if it failed the contradiction in conception test.

 

 

 

◀ Previous Contents Next ▶