In my opinion, the most important aspect of an ethical theory is its applicability to "real life" ethical dilemmas and situations. Even beyond the obvious intellectual rigor required by ethical philosophy, the most important test of an ethical theory must be its actual usefulness. It is not enough, in this sense, for an ethical principle to stand up only to logical scrutiny; it must also be subjected to a different kind of rigor, and that is of course the nuanced and messy reality in which we live. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The ethical theory that I think best stands up to this challenge is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. The aspect of Kant's categorical imperative that I find most practical for my life is the formulation of the law of humanity. I will explain later how I use this method to evaluate moral dilemmas in my life, but I find it important to explain why I am drawn to the Law of Humanity formulation in the first place. In "The Moral Law", Kant introduces his idea of ​​treating Humanity as an end in itself: "[man] and in general every rational being exists as an end in itself, not simply as a means arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions. . . it must always be considered at the same time as an end” (Timmons, p. 52). This is the essence of the Formulation of the Law of Humanity, which implores us to respect the intrinsic value of human beings, as part of their existence as rational beings. I think this kind of moral principle is easier to understand in its essence, and much easier to apply in practice than other moral theories. Compared to a consequentialist philosophy like that of Jeremy Bentham, it is easy to remember to treat other human beings as ends in themselves and not as means to be exploited for one's own gain, instead of analyzing the consequences of each individual action as we must do when we apply Bentham's Felicity Calculus. Kant elaborates on his concept of rational beings as ends in themselves later in “The Moral Law”: “These [rational beings] therefore, are not simply subjective ends whose existence has an effect for us. . . but objective ends, that is, things whose existence is an end in itself: an end which no other can replace" (Timmons, p. 52). For me, there are two parts of this statement that are particularly important for understanding why the formulation of the Law of Humanity is so valuable from a practical perspective. The first is Kant's claim that the value of man as an end in himself exists entirely outside of our subjective judgment. This is especially important because, as humans, we tend to see the value of others through the lens of our own experience. However, with Kant's explanation, we are given a moral framework for understanding the value of the lives of others given a non-standard goal: their status as rational beings. The second part that stands out in Kant's statement is the statement that the 'end' of every individual (human) rational being has no equal substitute. Saying this in the context of morality suggests to me not only that no human life can replace another (and therefore that the lives of all rational beings are equal) but, more importantly, that there is no single goal, idea, or thing that can justify the treatment of man as a mere means to an end. Kant's claims made up to this point in The Moral Law are obviously very strong, but in their essence they are simply formal, generalized statements of the way many people already live their lives.screw. Consider the “golden rule” and its near universality; Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a fundamental maxim of many people's personal moral code, and it has certainly always been part of mine. This is, in my opinion, very similar to the application of Kant's Formulation of the Law of Humanity. Kant states: “[T]he practical imperative will be as follows: Act therefore so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of anyone else, in any case as an end, never merely as a means” (Timmons, p. 53, italics in the original). Since no rational being would want to be treated simply as a means to another's end, the “practical” result of strictly adhering to the Formulation of the Law of Humanity results in an ethic very close to the Golden Rule. Kant here does not say that we could never use human beings as a means to achieve certain ends (indeed, we often depend on other people to achieve our goals), but he specifically argues that we should not treat them simply as means to achieve those ends. . This essentially becomes the difference between accepting someone's help and taking advantage of it, since in both cases we "use" another rational being as a sort of "means", however in the first case we do not respect the humanity of the other and use them rather than relying on them. Equally important is that Kant himself states that this imperative is practical, more of a "rule" more immediately applicable to our choices in the real world than a logical framework such as the formulation of universal law. Rather than being a logical system, humanity's law formulation of the categorical imperative is a maxim in the most literal sense, a rule of effective conduct when faced with moral dilemmas that – of course – poses the central question of humanity in first place. discussion. It's often easy to forget our most basic moral principles when we get caught up in the everyday problems and stresses of the "real world." We probably all know and believe that we should treat the ideal of humanity with reverence and treat human beings with respect for their inherent worth, but there is often pressure to "use" others to "get ahead" in one way or another. in the other, precisely in the context of the way in which Kant urges us not to do so. This is why I choose to rely on a principle like the Formulation of the Law of Humanity as, in one way or another, my personal words to live by. Always remembering to keep the value of my fellow man as an end in itself at the forefront of my ethical decision-making, even in the face of the most complex problems, is reassuring and helps me stay grounded. Even before I learned about the Law of Humanity Formulation, I always clung to similar ideas as the basis for my morality, whether it was the Golden Rule or some other source. In fact, I'm reminded of a Louis CK joke where he leaves a rental car parked at the airport instead of returning it as he should. He ends the joke with the realization that he could do the same thing every time, even if it's not right, because everyone else usually does it right, and the car rental company still wants their car back even if Louis breaks the car. rules. He goes on to remind himself that he should probably do things so that "if everyone acted that way, things would work out" (CK, Live at the Beacon Theatre). In a crude and sarcastic way, Louis expresses the same kind of sentiment that I find appealing about Kant's formulation of the Law of Humanity. It appeals to the idea of ​​an unconscious understanding that everyone in some sense "knows" the correct way to treat other people (and humanity in general) in a.