Kant S End in Itself Test States That People Should Be Treated As a Means Or As an End

Joonhee Cho

Coercion

Kant’s end in itself test states that people should be treated as a means or as an end, never just simply as a means. Someone being treated simply as a means is not acceptable for it requires some form of coercion or deception. This means that the person is being deprived of their right to autonomy. There are also standards for who has the right to autonomy. This brings up important morals questions such as whose autonomy trumps the other when two individuals’ right to autonomy come in conflict. Also should an individual allow someone die in order to keep from infringing upon the individual’s autonomy? In order to answer these difficult questions, we must first understand what Kant means by coercion and the end in itself test.
“Now I say: man and generally and rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether they concern himself or other rational beings, must always be regarded at the same time as an end.” Kant is saying that any human being that has the ability to reason has the right to self autonomy. In other words every human has the right to make choices on their own. He also writes, “Now morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, since by this alone is it possible that he should be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends.” This means that in addition to having the ability to reason, you must also be able to make moral judgements for that is the only way that you can judge whether you are treating someone as a means, simply as a means, or as an end. On top of this no human has the right to infringe upon another human’s right to autonomy. We should aim to treat people as an end and as a means by respecting the autonomy of everyone else. Kant believes that it is also ok to treat people as a means because treating people as a means still respects the autonomy of the individual that you are using as a tool. For example when you go to the bank, you use the teller as a tool but the teller’s autonomy is not being infringed upon. This is due to the fact that the teller is choosing to be used by his choice for some reason whether it be to advance up the corporate ladder or to save up money to go to college. The reason is not important as long as the choice to be used as a means is made freely. Kant also makes it clear that you should never treat people simply as a means when he states, “For all rational beings come under the law that each of them must treat itself never merely as a means, but in every case at the same time as ends in themselves.” Everyone has a right to autonomy.
“Autonomy of the will is the property that the will has of being a law to itself (independently of any property of objects of volition). The principle of autonomy is this: Always choose in such a way that in the same volition the maxims of the choice are at the same time present as universal law.” Kant defines autonomy of the will as the ability of an individual to rule himself. In other words an individual must always the the ability to exercise their own will. However an individual’s autonomy has its limitations. The will of an individual must be moral and the intentions of any action must be morally acceptable. Autonomy can be violated through coercion. According to American Heritage Dictionary, to coerce someone is to persuade an unwilling person to perform an action, using force or threats, against their will. According to this definition, coercion would occur any time an individual’s autonomy was infringed upon since the right to free will is being threatened. Therefore I will define coercion as any situation that autonomy is being threatened. This is the definition of coercion that will be used throughout the paper.
An issue with Kant’s test is that he believes that coercion is wrong in all cases because it violates autonomy. Kant believes that it is better to allow people to starve to death rather than violate their autonomy. There are starving people all over the world in third world countries that are just waiting for the day of their death to arrive. These people are often born into unfortunate situations that make it impossible for them to survive or make death something they hope for. Some people are so desperate that they allow companies such as pfizer to infect them with diseases just to feed their families. These test subjects often end up mutilated and in many cases dead. These are facts not stories. There are numerous articles and court cases that deal with the mistreatment of the dying people. This is not just some made up horror story but a real life atrocity. This is the epitome of individuals being treated simply as a means. Now imagine a company that needs cheap labor to help build up a developing country. This company comes into these ravished lands and offers the dying jobs. The individuals will be paid next to nothing. However, the contract includes food, shelter, and minimal healthcare for the entire family. In other words these people would be treated as domesticated work animals. Unfortunately, these are the best terms that the company can offer. Kant would have a problem with this arrangement because the individuals have no other choice but to accept the offer since anything is better than death. Kant would say that the individuals were coerced into signing the contract for doing so is the only way to survive. No matter how bad the contract is, it is a much better alternative than being in a constant state of fear of death. Kant thinks that it is better to let these people die rather than infringe upon their right to autonomy. I cannot accept this. I believe that every human being has the right to life which trumps autonomy. I would rather save someone’s life than do nothing but watch them die slowly and agonizingly. I believe the company has done the morally right thing.
Kant would argue that without autonomy an individual is living life as an empty shell. A gear that turns and turns until finally it just wears down and gets tossed away. It is morally wrong to treat a rational being simply as a means, because you are taking advantage of an individual and not allowing them to use what separates humans from animals, the ability to reason. Just like a tiger who has been caged all of its life loses the fire in its eyes, the oppressed individual is slowly and painfully being crushed to death until it, not he or she, can no longer take the pain and withers away. However, I still believe that protection of life trumps the right to autonomy for the following reason. As long as an individual is alive there will always be hope that he or she will be able to break away from their oppressed state and eventually regain their autonomy. I agree with Kant that autonomy is important to life like a human and not like a machine. But if living like a machine creates a small glimmer of hope that maybe one day the individual can live life autonomously, should we not preserve the individual’s life so that the hope can possibly become a reality? If so you have bought my argument that preservation of life does indeed trump the right to autonomy.
In conclusion, coercion is not always morally unacceptable. Treating someone simply as a means is morally wrong unless if it can preserve someone’s life. For it creates an opportunity for that individual to finally live a life of self autonomy. Furthermore, coercion is not morally wrong. In fact coercion can save peoples lives. However, coercion is a double edged sword that can save a life just as easily as coercion can kill it. Used wisely coercion can save the lives of many, which is the ultimate moral good.