Hiring someone is unethical to Kantians because you're treating them as a means?
I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?
kant
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?
kant
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago
add a comment |
I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?
kant
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?
kant
kant
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited yesterday
Dylan Yung
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
asked yesterday
Dylan YungDylan Yung
212
212
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago
add a comment |
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.
Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.
In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.
For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.
For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.
References
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html
See Also
Kant's second formulation
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61651%2fhiring-someone-is-unethical-to-kantians-because-youre-treating-them-as-a-means%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.
Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.
In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.
For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.
For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.
References
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html
See Also
Kant's second formulation
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
add a comment |
You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.
Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.
In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.
For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.
For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.
References
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html
See Also
Kant's second formulation
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
add a comment |
You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.
Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.
In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.
For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.
For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.
References
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html
See Also
Kant's second formulation
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:
Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.
The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.
Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.
In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.
For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.
For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.
References
http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html
See Also
Kant's second formulation
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
answered yesterday
virmaiorvirmaior
25.4k33997
25.4k33997
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
add a comment |
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .
– PeterJ
17 hours ago
add a comment |
Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61651%2fhiring-someone-is-unethical-to-kantians-because-youre-treating-them-as-a-means%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere
– another_name
1 hour ago