What are We to Treat As an End? Kant’s Answer and Its Contemporary Relevance

Abstract

A common point in today’s debates in various areas is that the consequences of accelerating anthropogenic changes, which include climate change and pan­demics, are challenging humanity, and that the latter requires protection. But un­derstanding should precede actions, otherwise the desire for security in a si­tuation of fear and ignorance can lead to measures with opposite results. In the attempts to provide philosophical meaning to our present condition the Kantian position is among the most respectable. “So act that you use human­ity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means” - this formula of Kant’s categoricalimperative has become commonplace, it is explicitly and implicitly used as a supreme principle in many ethical arguments, declarations, conventions, char­ters, and codes. At the same time, the understanding of what Kant meant by hu­manity, as well as its autonomy and dignity, widely differs across different philo­sophical camps and schools. The purpose of this paper is to try to make this crucial concept of humanity more clear, first, by analyzing the context of Kant’s thought, second, by studying the use of the concept in Kant’s texts. The claim of the paper is that Kant unites in the concept of humanity four heterogeneous yet equally necessary meanings that enter complex relations and provide valuable insights into today’s discussions