Question

1. Kant captures a universal feature of dignity when he demands we always treat others as an end, never as the means to an end.

In light of this, Princeton philosopher Peter Singer wrote a 2007 op-ed that shocked many readers with comments concerning the welfare of a disabled young girl by the name of Ashley. In Singer's editorial, he argues that only autonomous and rational animals merit dignity (here we're interested primarily in humans, though Singer claims elsewhere that rational animals of all species are equally dignified). Furthermore, he finds problems with Kant's notion of universal dignity as it may interfere with a person’s best interest.

If you’re convinced that Kant is on to something important, use your understanding of Kantian ethics to critique Singer’s position.

If, on the other hand, you think Singer’s argument has merit, clarify the key steps in his argument. How effective is Singer’s “best interest” argument?

Answer 1

I strongly standby the argument made by Singer as compared to that of Kant. This is because Kant's philosophical view on never treating humans as a means is not practically possible in many situation. With respect to Ashley who is disabled, she definitely would need help of others for completing several tasks. Here, the people who are helping her would firstly have an empathy on her and they would be happy to assist her in completing her task. Here, the people who were helping her might not have any personal advantage, but the mental happiness that they were used as a means to allow Ashle succeed in her task. In short, there are several human activities were we need to consider humans as a means to achieve the bigger target and hence the fact that a person's interest in the act is a matter to be considered as per Singer as a suitable stand here.