Ethical Scenario in Kant’s Theory of Humanity Essay

While trying to explain humanity, Immanuel Kant stated that we should always treat humanity in us or in other people as an end and not as a means (Barbara 2011). This is actually the argument which I believe is strongest.

The moral principle behind this argument is helping other people and at the same time helping you. This principle is normally known as beneficence. Treating an individual and yourself as an end depicts that you respect and value that person’s humanity and your humanity too.

This is how you can know that this premise is good. It is important to treat people equally and not discrimination on others because they are disabled or come from different ethnic group or race. Based on utilitarianism theory, an action is termed good if it generates good in a greater way and number (Wells & Johnjoe 2006).

It is immoral to treat a person or to use a person as a means to reach an end. This shows lack of respect since it lessens their humanity if used to reach an end.

No good comes out of treating a person as a means to reach an end. People may feel discriminated if they are used as a means to reach an end.

On the other hand, if you delight in everything that you do then the world is safe but if you take them as simply steps leading you towards the future, then that is the function will take the place of meaning leaving you to be an object without direction but only meant to satisfy your own future (Barbara 2011).

Using a person to fulfill your personal desires is almost similar to discriminating upon them since you do not respect or value them. This is why I can conclude that discrimination is immoral.

It leaves a group of people out of social gathering, or in the job market which is against the natural rights theory which states that all humans have natural rights.

The weakest argument on ethical scenarios addressed is: stating that it is God’s will for women to be ruled by men and that it is a moral action which should be accepted in the society.

I believe that this point is weak because it is going against moral principles and theories. According to moral principle of justice, people should be treated fairly and equally and in this scenario, there is no equal treatment because men dominate over women.

God created Eve to help Adam out and not for Adam to rule over her. They were to work together with each having their own roles and responsibility and above all they were to love and respect each other as husband and wife and not looking down upon the other party since they were all humans (Edmund 2004).

Despite the fact that this argument is in line with divine command theory that states that morality must be based on commands from God, it however does not hold since there is nowhere in the bible where it is stated that men should dominate over women.

This is how you can know that this premise is wrong. This therefore means that it is wrong to state that it is the will of God for women to be ruled by men. It will be therefore wrong to allow men to rule over women in the society.

Utilitarianism theory states that happiness ought to be maximized for all people. Women will not be happy in the society if they are dominated by men such that they are not even allowed and given chance to speak out their minds in the society.

The natural rights theory states that all humans have got natural rights and dominating over women will be like denying them their rights.

References

Barbara, M. (2011). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues. New York: Wadsworth Publishing

Edmund, O. (2004). On Human Nature. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Wells, H. & Johnjoe, M. (2006). Human Nature: Fact and Fiction. London and New York: Continuum.