3rd version of categorical imperative

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153008 wrote:

In Kant's 3rd version of the categorical imperative it states: always treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.

How can we make sense of what it means to treat someone as an end?

Don't use people... Consider that your relationship with them is a thing of value in and of itself; which it is...I have spent most of my life too busy for idle chatter and rubbing elbows with strangers...In fact, I was denying myself the better part of life, and that is making a connection, sharing the journey, recogniizing others, and being recognized by them...All we have is each other... Let's make the best of it...I'll bring the wine, and you bring the bread and thou... See how easy that was...

@Fido,

Fido;153057 wrote:

Don't use people... Consider that your relationship with them is a thing of value in and of itself; which it is...I have spent most of my life too busy for idle chatter and rubbing elbows with strangers...In fact, I was denying myself the better part of life, and that is making a connection, sharing the journey, recogniizing others, and being recognized by them...All we have is each other... Let's make the best of it...I'll bring the wine, and you bring the bread and thou... See how easy that was...

I get that part. Here is what I don't understand. A moral theory of punishment, specifically minimal retributivism, states that it is always morally wrong to punish the innocent. One of the arguments for it says that punishing the innocent is to treat that person as a means, which is not justified. However, the objection to this argument is it that this is only plausible to the extent that we can make sense of treating people as an end.

Now, if we are not treating someone only as a means, but as an end, what does this entail?

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153060 wrote:

I get that part. Here is what I don't understand. A moral theory of punishment, specifically minimal retributivism, states that it is always morally wrong to punish the innocent. One of the arguments for it says that punishing the innocent is to treat that person as a means, which is not justified. However, the objection to this argument is it that this is only plausible to the extent that we can make sense of treating people as an end.

Now, if we are not treating someone only as a means, but as an end, what does this entail?

I guess it entails that you are acting morally.

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153060 wrote:

I get that part. Here is what I don't understand. A moral theory of punishment, specifically minimal retributivism, states that it is always morally wrong to punish the innocent. One of the arguments for it says that punishing the innocent is to treat that person as a means, which is not justified. However, the objection to this argument is it that this is only plausible to the extent that we can make sense of treating people as an end.

Now, if we are not treating someone only as a means, but as an end, what does this entail?

I'm not sure, but this sounds a bit like the area of the punishment should fit the crime. To punish someone in order to set an example would in effect be treating that person as a means.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty would seem to treat persons as the end.

@wayne,

wayne;153082 wrote:

The principle of innocent until proven guilty would seem to treat persons as the end.

But no one is innocent until proven guilty. That's preposterous. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But they may well be guilty.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153083 wrote:

But no one is innocent until proven guilty. That's preposterous. People are presumed innocent until proven guilty. But they may well be guilty.

Yes ,you are correct, my omission.

@wayne,

wayne;153084 wrote:

Yes ,you are correct, my omission.

People keep saying "innocent until proven guilty", and it is obviously false. That is why I mentioned it.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153088 wrote:

People keep saying "innocent until proven guilty", and it is obviously false. That is why I mentioned it.

I must admit, I hadn't thought about it, but it really does make a difference. Of course if you took the cake and I can't prove it, I must then presume you innocent.

This seems to say something about where the moral burden lies.

@wayne,

wayne;153091 wrote:

I must admit, I hadn't thought about it, but it really does make a difference. Of course if you took the cake and I can't prove it, I must then presume you innocent.

This seems to say something about where the moral burden lies.

Yes. In the law, of course, where this comes from, the principle of the presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and not the accused. It is the prosecution that must, "go forward" (in legal talk), and prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in criminal cases) and "with the preponderance of evidence" (in civil cases) since more is at stake in criminal than in civil cases. The defense can just sit there and say and put up no defense at all. And unless the accused is proved guilty, the accused walks out of court a free man. So presumption of innocence is all about the burden of proof.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153094 wrote:

Yes. In the law, of course, where this comes from, the principle of the presumption of innocence means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, and not the accused. It is the prosecution that must, "go forward" (in legal talk), and prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt" (in criminal cases) and "with the preponderance of evidence" (in civil cases) since more is at stake in criminal than in civil cases. The defense can just sit there and say and put up no defense at all. And unless the accused is proved guilty, the accused walks out of court a free man. So presumption of innocence is all about the burden of proof.

I'm thinking this places the burden of morality squarely on the shoulders of society, while ensuring that one cannot legislate morality.

We, as society act morally while the individual remains free to choose his/her own morals.

@wayne,

wayne;153098 wrote:

I'm thinking this places the burden of morality squarely on the shoulders of society, while ensuring that one cannot legislate morality.

We, as society act morally while the individual remains free to choose his/her own morals.

Well, I don't see those connections, I have to admit. But the principle of the presumption of innocence is clearly an important protection for the individual against the vast power of the state. It give the accused a procedural edge to parry all the resources the state can bring against him. The Napoleonic code does not have this principle. It is quite unique to English common law.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153100 wrote:

Well, I don't see those connections, I have to admit.

I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is a moral principle, practiced by society, ensuring the individual as an end.
While the individual morals are left intact, whereas the cake thief is allowed to keep his own moral value by getting away with it.

Thats why we have the personal value that something is ok if you don't get caught.

Of course the individual morals determine the place of the individual in society. I think this causes our society to be one of great freedom, rather than impelling morals through fear, attracting morals through promise.

@wayne,

wayne;153103 wrote:

I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is a moral principle, practiced by society, ensuring the individual as an end.
While the individual morals are left intact, whereas the cake thief is allowed to keep his own moral value by getting away with it.

Thats why we have the personal value that something is ok if you don't get caught.

Of course the individual morals determine the place of the individual in society. I think this causes our society to be one of great freedom, rather than impelling morals through fear, attracting morals through promise.

I think that the principle does connect up with treating the individual as an end. I agree with that.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;153109 wrote:

I think that the principle does connect up with treating the individual as an end. I agree with that.

I think that when the individual is treated as an end , this presupposes the freedom of individual morals.

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153008 wrote:

How can we make sense of what it means to treat someone as an end?

Consider 'end' here as being synonymous to "goal". In other words: If you're an end (or "goal") then you - personally - are worthy of consideration or respect as opposed to you being used as a 'means to an end'. The way I take this is that individuals shouldn't ever be used to achieve, gain or get something; that this individuality should be respected on a higher plane, not as a means for something else.

@wayne,

wayne;153112 wrote:

I think that when the individual is treated as an end , this presupposes the freedom of individual morals.

Respected as a person in his own right with his own needs and goals, and not as an instrument to satisfying only your needs and goals. A father, for example, should consider his son's ambitions and aims in life , and not try to make his son conform to his own views to satisfy his own needs of pride (for example). Others should be treated as "autonomous beings" (As Kant wrote).

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153060 wrote:

I get that part. Here is what I don't understand. A moral theory of punishment, specifically minimal retributivism, states that it is always morally wrong to punish the innocent. One of the arguments for it says that punishing the innocent is to treat that person as a means, which is not justified. However, the objection to this argument is it that this is only plausible to the extent that we can make sense of treating people as an end.

Now, if we are not treating someone only as a means, but as an end, what does this entail?

It might be easiest to understand by looking at the reverse, at thinking of what it would mean to treat people as a means only, instead of an end in themselves, and then not doing that. If people are used as means only, there is a total disregard for their welfare and interests. It would be treating them as one typically treats rocks and other inanimate objects. If they are useful to oneself, one uses them; if one enjoys breaking them, one breaks them, etc.

To treat people as ends in themselves involves a respect for the welfare and interests of those people, independently of one's own interests.

To give an example of the former, imagine a man who is willing to say anything (i.e., willing to lie as needed) to a woman in order to get her to have sex with him, and then he casts her aside after he is done using her. That would be treating her as an object, as a means to satisfy his lust, rather than treating her as an end in herself. It is disregarding her interests and her desires, treating them as if they were nothing. It is to use her as one would use an inanimate object, without any concern for her interests.

Contrast that with someone who wants to have sex, but does not lie or mislead someone in order to do so. One may morally use others, according to Kant, but only if one simultaneously regards the person as a person, with his or her own interests and with a regard to that person's well-being. So it is not merely with the person's informed consent, but also with a proper regard for not harming the person.

In the case of punishment, if one were to take an innocent person and use that person as an example to discourage others from committing a crime, by, let us say, publicly flogging the person, this would be using the person as a means, and not be treating the person as an end him him or her self. If the person is guilty, then, and only then, will it be proper to punish the person, and then the punishment must be appropriate for the crime, not primarily as a deterrent for others. It may be used as a deterrent, but only within the confines of appropriate punishment for the crime committed. Thus, if someone deserved a minor punishment for whatever crime was committed, it would be wrong to give that person a greater punishment in order to deter others from committing the crime; the punishment must only be at a level appropriate for the crime, and no greater.

@Brandi phil,

Brandi;153060 wrote:

I get that part. Here is what I don't understand. A moral theory of punishment, specifically minimal retributivism, states that it is always morally wrong to punish the innocent. One of the arguments for it says that punishing the innocent is to treat that person as a means, which is not justified. However, the objection to this argument is it that this is only plausible to the extent that we can make sense of treating people as an end.

Now, if we are not treating someone only as a means, but as an end, what does this entail?

I do not believe there is a true moral theory of any sort, including Kant's...

To punish people to set an example is surely treating them as a means..

If society punishishes those presumed guilty out of proportion to the injury they have done in order to provide an example, then the people are not acting morally...If they take an eye for an eye they are acting justly...People are presumed to be more guilty than they are because so many escape justice, but this presumptionis unaccepaible... A moot, or a doom would have worked out the level of guilt...If the person killed some one who was frail, or lame, or themselves guilty of bloodshed then everything could be taken into account...In Anglo Saxon England some one might have killed in self defense and still had to pay blood money; but one death would not necessarily have followed upon another, so the goal of justice with peace was achieved...

The true object of law is justice first, and to make society whole...Some times society cannot be shown to have been injured at all by a crime, so there was no crime except the law...The terrible fact is that people are punished for crimes, and yet society does not make the victims whole, or close to being whole, when that is within their power, so what was the point???

We pay a great deal of money; enough for a college education to keep people in prison, and that stay represents a failure of the whole idea, and of the system to begin with...People are raised with brutality because justice is so rare, feeling they have no choice but brutality, and at every step in the process of punishment they may be subjected to arbetrary brutality from the state.... There is little point of leaving such people loose when they are so obviously brutal...

The control of communities over their own is lost, and law does not treat children as adults, or take on the role of their parents, but it does slap the hands of children who will never learn better at home, and then they become technically, adult, and find society has lost patience with them, and then find themselves behind bars for a long time...And not because their crimes warranted that, but to set an example to people who cannot learn by examples so far removed from their sight...The intelligent and moral do not need a lesson, and the brutal and uneducated look at those captured and punished as without luck, victims of misfortune... Fortune has nothing to do with it except that the nature of the crimes of the rich is usually different than those of the poor..

---------- Post added 04-18-2010 at 07:47 AM ----------

wayne;153103 wrote:

I'm saying that the presumption of innocence is a moral principle, practiced by society, ensuring the individual as an end.
While the individual morals are left intact, whereas the cake thief is allowed to keep his own moral value by getting away with it.

Thats why we have the personal value that something is ok if you don't get caught.

Of course the individual morals determine the place of the individual in society. I think this causes our society to be one of great freedom, rather than impelling morals through fear, attracting morals through promise.

The problem is that there is no presumption of innocence, and none can be proved...

We do not have communities and communities do not have control over their own so we cannot seek justice from other communities, or have them make the victims whole out of their common wealth...

But if that one who injured was a black, we treat the whole community as guilty and discriminate against them generally, which is group responsibility as much as in the past, and individually, when they are tried, their guilt is a foregone conclusion to many, and their penalties have often been greater...

If a person is not black, but because the failure of law leaves every person in fear, no body will be presumed innocent once in the hands of the police...If you have few friends you have to accept your brutes as opposed to their brutes...It does not matter if communities rght down to the level of the family have no legal control over their own, or that ones whole family is injured and outraged by injustice...If you cannot catch them all, then punish those you can catch for all you cannot catch; fair or foul, so crime can continue to grow and fester...Law destroys communities, and does not prevent the supposition of group responsibility...So the more law you have the more law you must have...It is a growth industry...

Philosophy Forum

3rd version of categorical imperative

Quick Links

My Account

able2know