Zathras' Great Machine

Musings on ethics

I majored in philosophy as an undergrad. My main field was the ontological problem, but ethics was a close second. After learning about any particular system of ethics, my usual reaction was, "Well, I can see the appeal, but no, that's not right." It seemed as though most philosophers were in the general ballpark, but no one got it quite right.

One philosopher, Immanuel Kant, came closer to the bull's eye than most of the others. His system wasn't right, either, but he did latch onto one notion that is very close to the crux of ethics: the distinction between "means" and "ends". Quoting from his "Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals":

Beings whose existence depends not on our will but on nature have... only a relative value as means and are therefore called things. On the other hand, rational beings are called persons inasmuch as their nature already marks them out as ends in themselves, i.e., as something which is not to be used merely as means and hence there is imposed thereby a limit on all arbitrary use of such beings, which are thus objects of respect. Persons are, therefore, not merely subjective ends, whose existence as an effect of our actions has a value for us; but such beings are objective ends, i.e., exist as ends in themselves. [Boldface mine -- PSK]

The practical imperative [for the distinction between ethical and unethical behavior] will therefore be the following: Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never as a means.

In other words, inanimate objects, such as hammers or chairs, are merely things that we may treat however we see fit for our own purposes. However, rational beings must be treated as ends unto themselves, not as tools for our use or otherwise as things in any way.

For example: I ask Denise whether I can borrow her car. I am behaving ethically because, by making the request and then abiding by her decision (whether it's "yes" or "no"), I am acknowledging that she is a rational being and not merely something that I can use as I see fit. However, if I take Denise's car without asking, this act is unethical because it constitutes treating her as a means for me to use in pursuit of what I want, rather than as an end unto herself; I am, in other words, treating her as though she were a thing, rather than a person. If I take Denise's car after I've asked for and received her permission, that's ethical, and it's called a loan. However, if I take her car without her permission, that's unethical, and it's called theft.

The same principle applies not just in ethical considerations, but even in good manners. (Actually, that's not a very good distinction to be making, since ethics and manners aren't two discrete fields; they overlap. That's why unethical people are usually rude and rude people are often unethical, but I'm digressing.) For example: if you need to walk thru a doorway, and there's a chair blocking it, you simply move the chair out of the way and walk thru the door. However, if you need to walk thru the doorway, and there's a person blocking it, you don't just move the person out of the way. Instead, you say "excuse me," and you wait for the person to step aside to let you pass (and after the person lets you pass, you say "thank you"). Moving the person aside would constitute treating that person like a chair, a simple object, so you don't do it. Instead, you say "excuse me", you wait, and then you say "thank you" afterward, thus acknowledging that the person is a rational being, not to be used as you see fit, but to be treated with the dignity and respect (as Kant said) that is deserved equally by all sentient beings, simply by virtue of the fact that they are sentient beings.

Kant's distinction between "people" and "things" doesn't seem to exist only in theory, either. Human beings, regardless of their culture, almost universally expect to be treated like human beings, and when they're treated as objects, they nearly always resent it. (There are exceptions, of course, but they're exceptions, not the rule.) That being the case, I think Kant was definitely onto something with this distinction between "ends" and "means" (although he didn't get it quite right... Schopenhauer did that when he adapted Kant's system, but that's going to be an entry for another time).

So what brought all this on? Well, a couple of people have wondered why I take such strong exception to being ignored. This little diversion is meant to explain why I feel that way. When you refuse to speak to someone, you are saying that you regard that person as a thing, not a human being (after all, you don't speak to rocks or fence posts, either). It's much the same as the feminist movement's insistence that women be treated as human beings -- that they not be objectified, that they not be treated as things. Treating women as nothing more than their bodies is objectification and is therefore wrong. Similarly, refusing to speak to someone is also objectification, and therefore, it, too, is wrong. (In fact, shutting someone out that way is arguably the highest insult it is possible to give, since it denies a person's humanity to a greater degree than just about any other form of objectification possibly could. Virtually all other forms of objectification tacitly admit, in some limited way, that a person is a person, but refusing to acknowledge a person altogether makes no such admission.)

Posted by Zathras at February 27, 2004 05:18 PM