Question

Kant formulates two versions of his categorical imperative, though he claims they are merely different formulations of the same principle. Would it be possible for someone to consistently hold the first imperative (always act in such a way that you could will that your act should be a universal law) but deny the second imperative (always treat others as ends in themselves, and never merely as means)?

Answer 1

One of the most important categorical imperatives is to act to a maxim which would become a universal law that others would follow. It’s is possible for someone to hold on to the first imperative while not following the second imperative. Most of the politicians or leaders of the country set an example in ruling the country in an ideal manner, but in order to achieve that they would use people from various departments and agencies to achieve their goals. This would mean that although their objective is to serve the country, they would use others such as the defense, healthcare, criminal justice system whether they like it or not. It’s not because they love them are see them as the ends in themselves but because they would like to win the next election through their actions that benefit people.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.