My Thoughts On Immanuel Kant’s Rule Regarding Morality

Today’s article was inspired by one of my favourite modern writers, Mark Manson (who is the author of the much-acclaimed book The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A F*ck, which I highly recommend reading).

While I was doing my usual morning trawl of Facebook, before I start work for the day, I came across a post of his, and one of the comments led me to the following article:

https://markmanson.net/the-one-rule-for-life

It’s a longish article, but it’s definitely worth a read, especially if, like me, you’ve heard of Immanual Kant but always thought his work too difficult to read, because Mark puts the thrust of Kant’s writing in words anybody can understand (one sign of a good writer, in my opinion).

Mark’s article focuses on the one rule that Kant came up regarding morality that has been so hotly debated since it was first written, in 1785, in the book Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals.

It’s sometimes known as the Ends Principle, but the original rule states:

“Act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.“

If this sounds similar to the famous Golden Rule (i.e. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), then it is, but it’s also different, because it places the entire burden of how you treat others (including humans and other animals) on you, and not on anything divine. (The Golden Rule, or at least versions of the above, feature in the Bible in several places, including Matthew 7:12, although Christianity cannot lay claim to this because similar “rules” existed prior to the New Testament era – e.g. Buddha said something along these lines back in 500 BCE.)

And when you realize what the Ends Principle is saying, it makes you appreciate how much of what we humans do is, according to Kant, immoral.

I know that if I think back about my own life, there must be countless occasions when I have used others as a means to an end.

That doesn’t mean they were all done with evil intent, but the people were still being used.

Perhaps in some cases, they knew that and were happy about it – after all, isn’t that what friends do? – in which case, does this violate Kant’s rule or not?

But there were probably also situations where the people were unwilling participants in my achieving something I wanted or needed, with little regard to them and their respect.

Mark’s article provides a few great examples of what this rule means in practice, especially the difference between “means” and “ends”, because if you don’t get this distinction, then the rest of the discussion will be difficult to comprehend.

What came to my mind when I was reading those examples was the adoption of pets (since Kant argued that non-human animals could have rights too).

Since moving to the USA in 2005, all of the dogs we have adopted came from a local rescue, and before that, my late wife rescued many others when she lived in another state. In fact, when I arrived on the scene, the existing eight dogs were all rescues.

So, I do believe, after considering the issue, that our end was to give homeless dogs a place where they could live a happy life, loved and cared for.

And yes, being honest, they provide companionship too, which is even more important to me now that my wife is gone.

But having run a pet-related business for 13 years, I do know that many people see pets as more of a fashion accessory.

In those cases, the end is having a cute dog (for example, some of those hybrid pseudo-breeds that have become popular these days, like the Goldendoodle and Chimation, which is a Chihuahua / Dalmatian mix), but there is little consideration about the pet.

To me, every living thing on this planet has an equal right to life – yes, even wasps, whose purpose is difficult to determine.

That’s why I love this quote by Paul Farmer:

“The idea that some lives matter less is the root of all that is wrong with the world.”

And I know there are plenty of people who believe that some lives matter more than others, both in terms of humans and other animals.

The Bible itself says that God gave humans dominion over all the animals, although this is not a view I have ever subscribed to, not least because I have never been a theist and do not believe the Bible was written or inspired by any god.

Perhaps the ultimate example of using others as a means to your own ends is slavery – something the Bible not only condones but provides rules for. These days, fortunately, most people accept that owning other humans as property is morally wrong.

But living up to Kant’s rule seems to be incredibly difficult – especially when you realize, as Mark points out, that it applies to yourself too, as well as all of the humans and other animals that you interact with.

In some ways, I see an overlap between this moral imperative and stoicism, because the latter focuses on what you can control, as opposed to those things outside of your control.

And Kant is effectively saying that you need to focus on yourself, as Mark points out near the end of his article.

The benefit that derives from this is that, as you improve yourself, those changes will begin to affect others too (in a positive way, of course).

Another consideration is our diet.

Regardless of whether you think humans have a right to treat other animals however you want, what does Kant’s rule say about eating meat (and I use this word in the loosest sense, to include, for example, fish)?

We all have to eat to live, and humans happen to be more or less at the top of the food chain, but killing an animal so we can eat its flesh does not seem like it’s doing anything other than using it as a means to our own ends.

So, if you accept that as an argument, then what about vegetarianism?

That sounds like a viable solution – except that science is starting to discover that perhaps plants are at least somewhat sentient too. I recall reading about a study done recently where they determined that a plant knows when it’s being eaten by an insect.

Is that actually a form of consciousness, or is it all pretty much pre-programmed via chemical reactions?

Following on from that, it lends credence to the vegan perspective – using animals to provide clothing, for example, would be seen as violating Kant’s rule, unless the animal was already dead when it was skinned for its hide.

I guess this is why the subject of morality and related topics have long been, and still are, widely discussed, because it seems easier to generate more questions than answers.

There’s one other aspect about Kant that I think is motivational, and that’s the fact that he didn’t become the person we know him as until he turned 40.

That makes him one of many people (e.g. Betty White, Cézanne, Charles Darwin, Grandma Moses, Harlan Sanders, Jack Cover, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Ray Kroc, Samuel Jackson, Stan Lee) who did not produce the work they are famous for until they were older – not all successful people or creators are child prodigies.

Conclusion

Mark’s article inspired me too to purchase the book by Kant on which it was based, and while it’s only a shortish read – fewer than 100 pages, including some biographical information in the version I bought – I am still expecting it to be a difficult read.

And as one reviewer said, it’s one of those books that you may need to read more than once, with a significant gap in between to allow the idea to percolate.

Finally, my thanks to Mark for another great article, which is not only thought-provoking, useful, and informative, but which uses a writing style that resonates well with me.

Additional Resources

These are suggestions for those who wish to delve deeper into any of the above:

1. Fundamental Principles Of The Metaphysics Of Morals
2. The Subtle Art Of Not Giving A F*ck