In my opinion, the most important aspect of an ethical theory is its applicability to “real life” ethical dilemmas and situations. Even beyond the obvious intellectual rigor that ethical philosophy demands, the most important test for an ethical theory must be its actual usefulness. In this sense, it is not enough for an ethical principle to only withstand logical scrutiny; it must also be subject to a different kind of rigor, and that of course is the nuanced and messy reality in which we live. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay The ethical theory that I believe best stands up to this challenge is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. The aspect of Kant's categorical imperative that I find most practical for my own life is the formulation of the law of humanity. I will explain later how I use this as a method for evaluating moral dilemmas in my own life, but I find it important to explain why I am drawn to the formulation of the Law of Humanity in the first place. In “The Moral Law,” Kant introduces his idea of ​​treating humanity as an end in itself: “[m]an and generally every rational being exists as an end in itself, not only as a means that can be used arbitrarily by this or that will, but in all his actions. . . must always be considered at the same time as an end” (Timmons, p. 52). This is the essence of the formulation of the Law of Humanity, which implores us to respect the intrinsic value of humans, as part of their existence as rational beings. I think this type of moral principle is the easiest to understand in its essence and much easier to apply in practice than other moral theories. Compared to a consequentialist philosophy like that of Jeremy Bentham, it is easy to remember to treat other humans as an end in themselves and not as a means to be exploited for one's own gain, instead of reviewing the consequences of each individual action as we must do when we apply Bentham's felicific calculus. Kant later develops his concept of rational beings as ends in themselves in “The Moral Law”: “These [rational beings] are therefore not simply subjective ends whose existence has an effect for us. . . but objective ends, that is to say things whose existence is an end in itself: an end moreover for which no other can substitute” (Timmons, p. 52). For me, there are two parts of this statement that are particularly important for understanding why the formulation of the law of humanity is so valuable on a practical level. The first is Kant's statement that the value of humans as an end in themselves exists entirely outside of our subjective judgment. This is particularly important because, as humans, we tend to view the value of others through the lens of our own experience. However, with Kant's explanation, we have a moral framework for understanding the value of other people's lives given a goal outside of norms: their status as rational beings. The second part of Kant's statement that stands out is the assertion that the "end" of any individual rational (human) being is without equal substitute. Saying this in the context of morality suggests to me not only that no human life can replace another (and therefore that the lives of all rational beings are equal) but, more importantly, that there is no unique goal, idea or thing that can justify the treatment of a human being as simply a means to achievean end. Kant's statements thus far in "The Moral Law" are obviously very strong, but they are in their essence simply formal, generalized statements about the way many people already live their lives. lives. Consider the “golden rule” and its near universality; Doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a fundamental maxim of many people's personal moral codes, and it has certainly always been a part of mine. This is, in my opinion, very similar to the application of Kant's formulation of human law. Kant states: “[T]he practical imperative will be as follows: Act therefore so as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of any other, in all cases as an end, never as a means only. » (Timmons, p. 53, emphasis in original). Since no rational being would wish to be treated simply as a means to another's end, the "practical" result of strictly following the formulation of the law of humanity results in an ethic very close to the Rule of 'gold. Kant is not saying here that we can never use humans as a means to certain ends (in fact, we often depend on others to achieve our goals), but he is specifically arguing that we should not treat them simply as means to achieve these ends. . This essentially makes the difference between accepting someone's help and taking advantage of it, because in both cases we are "using" another rational being as a sort of "means", but in the former case we are disrespecting each other's humanity and use them rather than relying on them. It is also important that Kant himself argues that this imperative is practical, more of a “rule” more immediately applicable to our real-world choices than a logical framework such as the formulation of universal law. Instead of being a logical system, the formulation of the categorical imperative of the law of humanity is a maxim in the most literal sense, an actual rule of conduct when we face moral dilemmas which – of course – bring the central question of humanity to the forefront. discussion. It's often easy to forget our most fundamental moral principles when we get caught up in the daily problems and stresses of the "real world." We probably all know and believe that we should treat the ideal of humanity with respect and treat humans with respect for their intrinsic value, but there is often pressure to "use" others to "get ahead" one way or another, precisely in the way that Kant advises us not to do it. This is why I have chosen to rely on such a principle as the formulation of the law of humanity as, in one way or another, my own personal words to live by. Always reminding myself to keep the value of my fellow human beings as an end in themselves at the forefront of my ethical decision-making, even when faced with the most complex issues, is reassuring and helps keep me grounded. Even before learning the law of humanity. In formulation, I have always held to similar ideas as the basis of my own morality, whether from the Golden Rule or another source. I actually remember a Louis CK joke where he leaves a rental car parked at the airport instead of returning it like he's supposed to. He ends the joke by realizing that he could do the same thing every time, even if it's wrong, because everyone usually does it the right way, and the rental company still wants his car back even if Louis breaks the rules. He goes on to remind himself that he should probably do things in such a way that.