At the bottom of page 176 of Conduct and Character, Fred Feldman writes, “I cannot simultaneously help all of these individuals [everyone] achieve their rational goals. I must choose some to help and some to ignore. According to D4, it would follow that I have to treat some of them merely as a means. CI2 then yields the inevitable result that I act wrongly. This seems much too severe”. Do your best to answer Feldman’s critique of Kant here in “On Treating People as Ends in Themselves: A Critique of Kant”. Make the case that a Kantian can refrain from bringing about the rational goal of some person without at the same time also treating that person as a mere means. Specifically, find a way to argue that under a Kantian ethic A can help B and also refrain from helping some other person C, but in which A’s refraining from helping C does not mean that A treated C as a mere means. Formulate your response to Feldman as one defending Kantian Ethical Theory. Then find a way to argue for why the Kantian Ethical Theory is consistent with a Christian worldview ethic which also argues that persons should not be treated as mere means. Would a Christian agree with Kant on his basic ethical theory? If so, why? Where might a Christian and a Kantian ethical theorist diverge?
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|