Kant buy me love

Philosophy nerd quiz: Describe Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative.

Anyone, anyone? Buller?

Okay, I'll tell you: human beings should be treated as ends, not means. Honor all humans as beings with dignity.

Why such a fancy title? And who is Kant anyway?

I learned this and more in a lecture Feb. 26 at the University of Alaska Anchorage, in an ethics class taught by my friend Dr. Ray Anthony (who was part of Central's Brevig Mission trip last year and also sings tenor in the Alaska Native Lutheran Church choir). Small world.

Two Central members joined me for this lecture in Ray's ethics class. For those of us (okay, me) who are used to thinking about morality in theological terms, it was interesting to hear it from another perspective.

The class has been discussing the moral reasoning set out by Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher (so says Wikipedia). Kant is one of the famed thinkers of the Enlightenment. It's interesting that Kant's ideas are called "imperatives," meaning he thinks that desicions based on sound moral reasoning are "musts" for any thinking person.

Actions, said Kant, should be made in accordance to moral rule, should be rational and should be consistent with what any other rational person would do in the same circumstance.

Of course I agree with Kant that we should treat all humans as persons with dignity (from God, I'd add) and that people are ends to themselves, not means to get what I want. That said, we "use" people all the time to meet our needs. That's okay, said Kant, as long as you honor that they don't exist just to meet your need. Still honor their dignity and personhood even as they help you out. Interesting, I think.

Using Kant's principles, the class discussed an article called "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," by Ursula Le Guin. Synopsis: a fabled city called Omelas is perfect, except for one child who lives in abject misery locked in a basement. All citizens of Omelas believe the child must remain in torture for their happiness to continue. If the child was freed, life in Omelas would cease to be perfect.

But not all are content. Some choose to walk away from this city into the unknown.

Now in a Lutheran understanding, I'd say this child is a scapegoat, a place to cast the sins of the city so they can feel "perfect." It's a way of not recognizing the true nature of the human person as "saint and sinner."

Those who walked away from Omelas recognized it was wrong to treat the child as an object for the sake of their happiness. So they honored the child's status as a human with dignity.

But Ray made another good point: when they walked away, they also honored their own dignity. They embraced their own dignity by refusing to be complicit in a system that would treat a human as an object.

Ray asked the class: where in our city/country/world are humans treated like objects? How can we honor their dignity and our own by refusing to participate in these systems?

Someone in the class suggested sweatshops in other country, where workers put in 20-hour days with inadequate pay and conditions so I can get a shirt for $10 at Wal-Mart.

What do you think?