People as Ends in Themselves
I think we want to elaborate on a philosophical point from yesterday. I would examine further what it actually means to treat people as ends in themselves. It is a rather vague phrase. I actually think that it may be clearer to think of it as the negation of treating people as mere means to ends. I have much clearer intuitions about what it means to treat someone as a mere means to an end. The run-over fat man from yesterday's entry is clearly being treated as a mere means to an end. It also clarifies what I think is wrong in various other counterexamples to utilitarianism that I have heard over the years. One of them, for example, involves killing someone so that her organs can be used to save the lives of four other people. She is also being used as a mere means to an end.
What do these two instances have in common with each other? Given them, I can see two different ways of interpreting what it means to treat someone as a mere means to an end. First, it could be that they are being denied a choice about what happens to them. Second, it could mean that they are getting harmed in order to serve some purpose not of their choosing. The first criterion is obviously broader-ranging than the second. I have heard Kant interpreted in this way, however. The Friesian School, which advocates laissez-faire capitalism, is one such interpretation. It also makes me think of one of my ethics lecturers, who believed that it was immoral to force people to wear seatbelts because it meant they were denied a choice.
That sounds a bit weak to me. I cannot think that there is anything wrong with making seatbelts compulsory. Especially when you have a public health system that you do not want to get unnecessarily burdened by idiots who did not wear their seatbelts. Of course, a laissez-faire capitalist would also be opposed to a public health system. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the laissez-faire capitalists can go screw themselves. We're proud of our public health system in this country. And it's a hell of a lot better than a health system that just throws people out of a cab in front of the nearest St Vincent de Paul centre because they cannot pay a hospital bill. My dad's a doctor, and he has a perfectly good living from a public hospital. And he believes in helping everybody, not just those who can pay.
So why do I have this intuition? Why do I think that it is acceptable to force people to wear seatbelts, or charge them a Medicare levy? I think that it is because neither of these constraints harm the people concerned -- indeed, they benefit from them. Some will say that this is paternalism. If paternalism is simply the interference of the liberty of the individual for the sake of his or her own good, then I think that that is simply correct. But I do not think that there is anything wrong with this in many cases. On the other hand, I do think that there is something very wrong with harming an individual in order to serve any end at all. This commits me to the second interpretation of treating people as mere means to ends. You treat people as mere means to ends when you harm them, for any reason at all. Hence you treat people as ends in themselves when -- among other things, presumably -- you do not harm them. I can see already that this discussion raises any number of questions. As far as I'm concerned, the answers to them can wait until at least tomorrow.
What do these two instances have in common with each other? Given them, I can see two different ways of interpreting what it means to treat someone as a mere means to an end. First, it could be that they are being denied a choice about what happens to them. Second, it could mean that they are getting harmed in order to serve some purpose not of their choosing. The first criterion is obviously broader-ranging than the second. I have heard Kant interpreted in this way, however. The Friesian School, which advocates laissez-faire capitalism, is one such interpretation. It also makes me think of one of my ethics lecturers, who believed that it was immoral to force people to wear seatbelts because it meant they were denied a choice.
That sounds a bit weak to me. I cannot think that there is anything wrong with making seatbelts compulsory. Especially when you have a public health system that you do not want to get unnecessarily burdened by idiots who did not wear their seatbelts. Of course, a laissez-faire capitalist would also be opposed to a public health system. Well, as far as I'm concerned, the laissez-faire capitalists can go screw themselves. We're proud of our public health system in this country. And it's a hell of a lot better than a health system that just throws people out of a cab in front of the nearest St Vincent de Paul centre because they cannot pay a hospital bill. My dad's a doctor, and he has a perfectly good living from a public hospital. And he believes in helping everybody, not just those who can pay.
So why do I have this intuition? Why do I think that it is acceptable to force people to wear seatbelts, or charge them a Medicare levy? I think that it is because neither of these constraints harm the people concerned -- indeed, they benefit from them. Some will say that this is paternalism. If paternalism is simply the interference of the liberty of the individual for the sake of his or her own good, then I think that that is simply correct. But I do not think that there is anything wrong with this in many cases. On the other hand, I do think that there is something very wrong with harming an individual in order to serve any end at all. This commits me to the second interpretation of treating people as mere means to ends. You treat people as mere means to ends when you harm them, for any reason at all. Hence you treat people as ends in themselves when -- among other things, presumably -- you do not harm them. I can see already that this discussion raises any number of questions. As far as I'm concerned, the answers to them can wait until at least tomorrow.
Comments