-1

Let's use the example of the trolly problem, as everyone seems to understand what is at stake there. If I have a radio to the train driver, am I "using people as means" if I:

  1. tell him to change track;
  2. tell him what is happening;
  3. don't tell him what is happening?
1
  • 2
    Even if 1 and 2 qualify as "using" (which I doubt) it will not be "merely as means" because what people do remains up to them. If withholding the information is intended to manipulate them into acting towards your ends 3 might qualify, but you'll have to be more specific as to which trolley problem you have in mind, there are dozens of versions, and what the intent is. Kleingeld in A Kantian Solution to the Trolley Problem discusses Bystander, Footbridge and Loop versions from a Kantian angle, and the answers differ.
    – Conifold
    Commented Nov 24, 2021 at 0:15

1 Answer 1

1

There is a common misconception that Kant prohibits using other people as means. This isn't true. Kant, in general, only prohibits using people as merely means to an end.

If Kant meant that you could not treat other people as means at all, then his maxim would fail his universalizability test. Namely, one wouldn't be able to imagine constructing a functioning society that could exist if you could not use another person to achieve some goal X. For instance, you wouldn't be able to have shops with cashiers, successful industrial factories, and so forth.

3
  • I didn't make that misconception, this is odd as an answer.
    – user56815
    Commented Nov 23, 2021 at 23:11
  • 1
    @anon the way I understood your example is that by instructing and telling the driver what to do, you are 'using him as means' to achieve some end. But if this is so, then Kant does not prohibit us from it. Commented Nov 23, 2021 at 23:13
  • yep that's why I uprooted, thanks. the title should help us both get to the nub of things
    – user56815
    Commented Nov 23, 2021 at 23:15

You must log in to answer this question.