Reading Questions #4

1. What does Kant mean by humanity? How are the concepts of end, means, autonomy, and
respect connected with the concept of humanity?
Kant refers to humanity as treating all rational and autonomous beings as an end and
never as a means. Autonomy is important to humanity because it explains the immorality of
oppressing others. It allows us to hold others accountable for their actions. Oppressing
autonomous beings denies them of their goals and hopes. To treat someone as an end is to treat
them with the respect they deserve. Treating someone as a means is interacting with someone so
that they may help you with your own goals. This is not always wrong, as some situations such
as hiring labor, require treating individuals as a means. However, Kant considers this to be
treating someone as an end if they are also given respect.
2. Explain why, for Kant, the good will is the only thing that always adds value, as opposed to
the consequentialist view about the value of consequences.
The good will is the only thing that adds value for Kant because it allows us to reliably
know our duty and gives us a steady commitment to do our duty for the sake of it. Unlike
happiness and other possible values, the good will cannot come about from wrongdoing. The
only way for actions to be praiseworthy is if they come from good will. For Kant, rational
thinking without feelings is the only way to determine right and wrong
3. Do you think American levels of consumption, if it can only be fulfilled through the poverty of
other people, fails to respect those other peoples' autonomy?
American consumption would fail to respect those other peoples autonomy. Being
autonomous means we are self-legislators. Although it enables these people to decide for
themselves and choose which path they want to take, American consumption has taken away the
ability for an alternative path to be available. The level of consumption effectively treats these
people like slaves by using them solely as a source of their own gratification.
4. How does Kant justify punishment and how does it differ from a consequentialist view of
punishment? Which form of punishment do you think is best? Explain.
Kant justifies punishment of criminals if they are treated the same as their victims were.
This punishment would appear to treat criminals as an end. Because the criminal is being treated
as rational and autonomous, the criminal is treated with respect. The rationality of the criminal
allows us to treat them the same way as their victims.
5. Explain the problem of moral luck with respect to Kant's view of punishment. How would you
address this problem?
Moral luck occurs when the morality of an action depends on factors we are not able to
control. Kant believes that moral responsibility depend on control. In some situations, not every

factor can be controlled. An individual who commits a crime as a result of moral luck cannot
have autonomy because their actions were not fully their own. Without autonomy, the criminal
cannot be punished the same way his victim was. I would address this problem by