Question

Countries in the European Union are free market, capitalist countries, yet they do not have the enormous gap between the rich and the poor that we see in the US. One of the reasons for this is that their moral perspective is Kantian and ours is Utilitarian. Kant's respect for persons principle requires that we do not use other people as a means to an end-- not socially, not politically, and not economically. Opposed to this Americans tend to be Utilitarians and accept that the we should seek happiness for the greater number. Unfortunately, that could mean a ratio of 51 to 49 in which the 51 benefit and the 49 do not. So in this way, the history of the US has come to be this ratio of haves and have nots, and the haves often feel justified in having more in this way.

Think about this a bit. Are the haves justified? What would Kant say about that?

This is really all about fairness and what is just. Do we have a moral obligation to share when we have more than we need?


(Philosophy)

Please help need explanation thank you!

Answer 1

From a Kantian perspective, the haves would not be justified in having more than they need if it means using others as a means to an end. Kant's respect for persons principle requires that we treat others with dignity and respect, and not exploit them for our own benefit. Therefore, if the haves are benefiting at the expense of the have nots, then they are not acting in accordance with Kantian ethics.

In terms of moral obligation to share, Kant believed that we have a duty to help others, but not out of a sense of obligation or duty. Instead, we should help others because it is the right thing to do, and because we recognize their inherent value and worth as human beings. Therefore, from a Kantian perspective, we do have a moral obligation to share, but it is not based on a utilitarian calculation of maximizing happiness for the greatest number. Rather, it is based on a recognition of our duty to treat others with respect and dignity.