It is wrong to treat other people simply as a means to some end or goal.
I'm not sure what exactly this means. How do you interact with someone besides as a means towards an end (even if the "end" is just a fun conversation, or perhaps your own sense of altruism).
Typically the argument is that social interaction is naturally engaged upon by both sides for a purpose -- that is, as means to an end. However, it can be said to be immoral to treat other humans in the same way you would treat, say, a tool.
Basically, you can engage in mutually beneficial interactions, but once you begin to interact with people in a way that neglects them (i.e. is only beneficial to you), you cross the line into immoral behavior.
For example: a typical job is a mutually beneficial arrangement. One party agrees to work and the other party agrees to pay. In this sense both parties are respecting the others' decision-making capacity. Neither is using the other in a one-sided way. However, in the case of slavery, we see a one-sided relationship in which the slave does not benefit at all, and into which he would never rationally enter. This is a case of treating someone as purely a means to an end.
It's usually interpreted to mean that you need to respect that other people have ends of their own; they aren't just there for your benefit. I mentioned dating as a context where this sometimes happens, and I was thinking specifically of the pickup artist community.
You're right - even my relationship with my fiance is based on us wanting something from each other. We want to love and be loved - to care and be cared about. Are we "using" each other? Maybe, but there's no manipulation involved. We wouldn't want any part of it if the other wasn't enjoying the relationship.
I believe what's intended is that it's wrong to use people with disregard for their feelings and desires. We have a lot to gain by treating each other as willing partners (as with my fiance) rather than as tools.
I think I agree with you. Really, companies should care about the employee if for no other reason then because caring is the best way to extract value from them. A happy employee is a good employee, and there is a large hidden cost of hiring a new developer when the old one quits.
Comments
This reminds me of Kant.
Typically the argument is that social interaction is naturally engaged upon by both sides for a purpose -- that is, as means to an end. However, it can be said to be immoral to treat other humans in the same way you would treat, say, a tool.
Basically, you can engage in mutually beneficial interactions, but once you begin to interact with people in a way that neglects them (i.e. is only beneficial to you), you cross the line into immoral behavior.
For example: a typical job is a mutually beneficial arrangement. One party agrees to work and the other party agrees to pay. In this sense both parties are respecting the others' decision-making capacity. Neither is using the other in a one-sided way. However, in the case of slavery, we see a one-sided relationship in which the slave does not benefit at all, and into which he would never rationally enter. This is a case of treating someone as purely a means to an end.
It should: I referenced the second formulation of the categorical imperative in the post.
It's usually interpreted to mean that you need to respect that other people have ends of their own; they aren't just there for your benefit. I mentioned dating as a context where this sometimes happens, and I was thinking specifically of the pickup artist community.
You're right - even my relationship with my fiance is based on us wanting something from each other. We want to love and be loved - to care and be cared about. Are we "using" each other? Maybe, but there's no manipulation involved. We wouldn't want any part of it if the other wasn't enjoying the relationship.
I believe what's intended is that it's wrong to use people with disregard for their feelings and desires. We have a lot to gain by treating each other as willing partners (as with my fiance) rather than as tools.
I think I agree with you. Really, companies should care about the employee if for no other reason then because caring is the best way to extract value from them. A happy employee is a good employee, and there is a large hidden cost of hiring a new developer when the old one quits.
The interaction is an end in itself.