Skip to main content

Instrumentalization: What Does It Mean to Use a Person?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Humiliation, Degradation, Dehumanization

Part of the book series: Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy ((LOET,volume 24))

Abstract

In Kant’s moral theory we find a close connection between the concept of human dignity and the prohibition to use people merely as means. My chapter follows Kant in tracing this connection. But in contrast to Kant, for whom the prohibition to use people covers the whole range of perfect duties, I present an account of using people that seems to be closer to our common sense understanding in that it only covers a limited range of such duties. I will argue that, nevertheless, we need the concept of human dignity to explain why it is at least prima facie wrong to use people merely as means. The peculiar work that the concept of human dignity fulfills in explaining the wrongness of these acts does not consist in making them wrong directly. The concept of human dignity is rather necessary to explain how certain other properties can make acts wrong. By applying the concept of human dignity to the case of using people, we not only become able to explain the wrongness of using, but we also see that the concept of human dignity does play an important role in moral philosophy as a whole.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Different conceptions of dignity may for example be drawn from expressions such as “to live under undignified circumstances” or “to be bereft of one’s dignity.” In the following, I will not address these conceptions and their relation with the conception I am presenting.

  2. 2.

    For the definition of dignity as a virtue, see Beyleveld and Brownsword (2001: 58–60).

  3. 3.

    There are of course other accounts of human dignity that are less speciesist than this one.

  4. 4.

    See Kant (1902: IV.437): “[…] so wird der Zweck hier nicht als ein zu bewirkender, sondern selbstständiger Zweck, mithin nur negativ, gedacht werden müssen, d.i. dem niemals zuwider gehandelt […] werden muss.”

  5. 5.

    Kant expresses a similar idea when he says that a being with dignity “limits all choice” (“[…] mithin sofern alle Willkür einschränkt”) (Kant 1902: IV.428). The close relation between respect for persons and constraints on our behavior is also stressed by Stephen Darwall (1977, 2004).

  6. 6.

    Here I disagree with Robert Nozick, for example, who seems to suggest that we use a person whenever we violate a constraint that the properties of this person impose on us (Nozick 1974: 31–32).

  7. 7.

    A goal essentially refers to a person if it cannot be spelled out without linguistically referring in any way to the person in question, be it by using proper names or definite descriptions.

  8. 8.

    Quinn (1989: 343, 348–349) and Scanlon (2008: 106) refer to a similar condition.

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Parfit (forthcoming, Chapter 8). On Kant see Paton (1948: 165), Ross (1969: 49) or Timmermann (2007: 96).

  10. 10.

    With “justification” I do not mean moral but only epistemic justification. A similar idea is expressed by Kerstein (2009).

  11. 11.

    There might of course be other proposals than the one I am presenting: namely, the proposal to obtain a similar prohibition by presupposing the capacity to set and follow ends to be valuable in itself. I here assume that any proposal that does not refer to this capacity at all would be even less capable of capturing our intuitions with regard to the constraint on merely using people.

  12. 12.

    The same consideration does not apply to the claim that some particular beings are valuable in themselves.

References

  • Archard, David. 1998. Sexual consent. Oxford: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyleveld, Deryck and Roger Brownsword. 2001. Human dignity in bioethics and biolaw. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, Stephen. 1977. Two Kinds of Respect. Ethics 88: 36–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Darwall, Stephen. 2004. Respect and the second-person standpoint. Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 78: 43–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kant, Immanuel. 1902. Gesammelte Schriften. Berlin: Königlich-Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerstein, Samuel. 2009. Treating others merely as means. Utilitas 21: 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parfit, Derek. forthcoming. On what matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paton, Herbert James. 1948. The categorical imperative. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, Warren. 1989. Actions, intentions, and consequences: The doctrine of double effect. Philosophy and Public Affairs 18: 334–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, William David. 1969. Kant’s ethical theory. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scanlon, Thomas. 2008. Moral dimensions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timmermann, Jens. 2007. Kant’s groundworks of the metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wertheimer, Alan. 2003. Consent to sexual relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paulus Kaufmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaufmann, P. (2011). Instrumentalization: What Does It Mean to Use a Person?. In: Kaufmann, P., Kuch, H., Neuhaeuser, C., Webster, E. (eds) Humiliation, Degradation, Dehumanization. Library of Ethics and Applied Philosophy, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9661-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics