Kantian Theory: The Categorical Imperative

566 Words2 Pages

From a Kantian perspective, we look at the act in itself. In Kantian theory, the categorical imperative is a logical test that encompasses three formulations, but I will only discuss one. The consequence of using a person to benefit another is that we cause non-malfeasance to a healthy person to benefit an ill person (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 363). This act violates the principle respect for persons of the second means as an end formulation of the categorical imperative. In this formulation, we are to act by treating humans as an end, and not as a means for our purposes only, because each rational being has equal moral worth and dignity (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 20). Justice, a kantian value claims we do not sacrifice some to benefit …show more content…

Kant argues that selling organs violates the respect for person’s body and dignity (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 363). He looks at the value of an organ. Intrinsic value is the value in an end itself and the instrumental value is the value of its use. We cannot treat the body as a commodity because it has intrinsic value and it is not permissible to view the body as secede organs that are sold. The body is whole and when selling our organs we are in essence selling our souls (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 365). Thus, we are then viewing the organ as for its instrumental value. To see the person as dissimilar from the body means we view it is separate from ones self, when there is a connection. To think organs are spare parts that can be bought or sold can harmfully sway respect for the human body and human dignity (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p. 365). I argue, selling organs treats our organs as a mere source. Paying for organs reduces the gift of life and transfers donors into mere sources (Collier & Haliburton, 2015, p.

Open Document