Kant didn't mean that "it's ok to sometimes use people for your own ends, as long as you don't do it all the time." He meant that we can morally use other people for our own ends as long as we concurrently consider their ends as well. To put a slight interpretation on this, he means that we can use other people as long as it's a use that is consistent with what a rational person would allow done to them self. That's why Rawl's Veil of Ignorance thought experiment is such a good application of Kant.
The CI isn't the same as "you should behave yourself the way you would want other people to always behave." Otherwise it'd be ok for masochists to hurt other people. This later point is also a problem for the Golden Rule. Kant felt that he was presenting an improved version of the Golden Rule.
Regarding "I think Kant would say that the CI still works in cases where people have to lie or steal to get drugs to save a dying person, etc. He would probably have wanted looters in New Orleans to break into Walmart to get water and diapers for example." Actually, this is wrong. Kant gives examples, such as lying, of applications of the categorical imperative. He did not allow exceptions, even for serious consequences. For Kant, the ends never justified the means.
Perhaps. I paged through one of her books years ago, but I don't remember it very well. When I get to a big bookstore, I'll take a look. If I agree with you, I'll be happy to say so.It sounds as if you have not looked at the Sally Mann photographs. Maybe if you do, you'll see what I mean.--shannon
============================================================================================================= To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
