Hiring someone is unethical to Kantians because you're treating them as a means? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InKant's second formulationHow Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative interacts with consentAre the first and second forms of the categorical imperative actually equivalent?Does Rand appropriate Kant's Categorical Imperative?How does Kant link the three subordinate formulations of the categorical imperative to the universal law?How do you treat retailers without using them as a means?Does Sartre's disdain of some professions contradict Kant's Categorical Imperative?“Repugnant conclusions” following from Kant's imperative to never use humans only as means to an end?In Kant, how do Universalizability and Freedom relate to each other?If a moral law contains “If-then/Unless-then” clauses, is it still Kantian?Applying the Mere Means principleHow is Kantian's Universality Formulation identical to his Humanity Formulation (Principle of Ends)?

What does Linus Torvalds mean when he says that Git "never ever" tracks a file?

CiviEvent: Public link for events of a specific type

A poker game description that does not feel gimmicky

What is the motivation for a law requiring 2 parties to consent for recording a conversation

aging parents with no investments

Limit to 0 ambiguity

Lethal sonic weapons

Is domain driven design an anti-SQL pattern?

Idiomatic way to prevent slicing?

What do the Banks children have against barley water?

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

Falsification in Math vs Science

Realistic Alternatives to Dust: What Else Could Feed a Plankton Bloom?

Landlord wants to switch my lease to a "Land contract" to "get back at the city"

If the Wish spell is used to duplicate the effect of Simulacrum, are existing duplicates destroyed?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

Dual Citizen. Exited the US on Italian passport recently

What are the motivations for publishing new editions of an existing textbook, beyond new discoveries in a field?

What is the best strategy for white in this position?

How to manage monthly salary

Inflated grade on resume at previous job, might former employer tell new employer?

Understanding the implication of what "well-defined" means for the operation in quotient group

Is "plugging out" electronic devices an American expression?

Why is the maximum length of OpenWrt’s root password 8 characters?



Hiring someone is unethical to Kantians because you're treating them as a means?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InKant's second formulationHow Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative interacts with consentAre the first and second forms of the categorical imperative actually equivalent?Does Rand appropriate Kant's Categorical Imperative?How does Kant link the three subordinate formulations of the categorical imperative to the universal law?How do you treat retailers without using them as a means?Does Sartre's disdain of some professions contradict Kant's Categorical Imperative?“Repugnant conclusions” following from Kant's imperative to never use humans only as means to an end?In Kant, how do Universalizability and Freedom relate to each other?If a moral law contains “If-then/Unless-then” clauses, is it still Kantian?Applying the Mere Means principleHow is Kantian's Universality Formulation identical to his Humanity Formulation (Principle of Ends)?










4















I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

    – another_name
    Apr 7 at 3:44















4















I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




















  • one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

    – another_name
    Apr 7 at 3:44













4












4








4


1






I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












I read it is unethical to hire someone because it breaks the second categorical imperative which is to treat people as an ends. If by hiring someone to do something you are treating them as a means to get a job done and therefore it is unethical. Are there any counters to this?







kant






share|improve this question









New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Apr 6 at 2:37







Dylan Yung













New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked Apr 6 at 1:58









Dylan YungDylan Yung

212




212




New contributor




Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Dylan Yung is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.












  • one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

    – another_name
    Apr 7 at 3:44

















  • one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

    – another_name
    Apr 7 at 3:44
















one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

– another_name
Apr 7 at 3:44





one example i've seen is taxi drivers, you're not treating a taxi driver as a means by paying them to take you somewhere

– another_name
Apr 7 at 3:44










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















13














You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:




Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.




The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.



Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.



In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.



For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.



For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.



References



http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html



See Also



Kant's second formulation






share|improve this answer























  • An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

    – PeterJ
    Apr 6 at 11:45











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);






Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61651%2fhiring-someone-is-unethical-to-kantians-because-youre-treating-them-as-a-means%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









13














You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:




Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.




The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.



Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.



In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.



For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.



For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.



References



http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html



See Also



Kant's second formulation






share|improve this answer























  • An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

    – PeterJ
    Apr 6 at 11:45















13














You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:




Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.




The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.



Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.



In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.



For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.



For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.



References



http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html



See Also



Kant's second formulation






share|improve this answer























  • An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

    – PeterJ
    Apr 6 at 11:45













13












13








13







You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:




Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.




The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.



Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.



In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.



For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.



For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.



References



http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html



See Also



Kant's second formulation






share|improve this answer













You're missing an important word. The second formulation of the categorical imperative in the Groundwork is:




Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end.




The key phrase here is "never simply." Kant has no problem with entering into mutually beneficial rational contracts.



Maybe stated in another way, using someone as a mere means is abusing their rationality by getting them to act in a way inconsistent with how they would act when fully informed.



In fact in the Metaphysics of Morals, this is how Kant understands sex and marriage, because Kant views sex as using another person as the means to your gratification, and he thinks this is only justifiable insofar as you both rationally consent to the arrangement -- and make it permanent.



For instance, Kant sees it as an abuse of a ticket seller to pay with a credit card you know is stolen. Or conversely, to sell seats you know you don't have the rights to.



For Kant, employment itself should be a rationally entered into arrangement between the employer and employee where they understand what they agree to.



References



http://www.utm.edu/staff/jfieser/class/300/categorical.htm
http://alexanderpruss.com/145/KantOnMarriage.html



See Also



Kant's second formulation







share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Apr 6 at 3:09









virmaiorvirmaior

25.4k33997




25.4k33997












  • An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

    – PeterJ
    Apr 6 at 11:45

















  • An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

    – PeterJ
    Apr 6 at 11:45
















An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

– PeterJ
Apr 6 at 11:45





An object lesson in how to answer here. I must take notice. .

– PeterJ
Apr 6 at 11:45










Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









draft saved

draft discarded


















Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











Dylan Yung is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f61651%2fhiring-someone-is-unethical-to-kantians-because-youre-treating-them-as-a-means%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Sum ergo cogito? 1 nng

三茅街道4182Guuntc Dn precexpngmageondP