Joonhee Cho
Coercion
Kant’s end in itself test states that people should be treated as a means or as an
end, never just simply as a means. Someone being treated simply as a means is not
acceptable for it requires some form of coercion or deception. This means that the person
is being deprived of their right to autonomy. There are also standards for who has the
right to autonomy. This brings up important morals questions such as whose autonomy
trumps the other when two individuals’ right to autonomy come in conflict. Also should
an individual allow someone die in order to keep from infringing upon the individual’s
autonomy? In order to answer these difficult questions, we must first understand what
Kant means by coercion and the end in itself test.
“Now I say: man and generally and rational being exists as an end in himself, not
merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will, but in all his actions, whether
they concern himself or other rational beings, must always be regarded at the same time
as an end.” Kant is saying that any human being that has the ability to reason has the right
to self autonomy. In other words every human has the right to make choices on their own.
He also writes, “Now morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be
an end in himself, since by this alone is it possible that he should be a legislating member
in the kingdom of ends.” This means that in addition to having the ability to reason, you
must also be able to make moral judgements for that is the only way that you can judge
whether you are treating someone as a means, simply as a means, or as an end. On top of
this no human has the right to infringe upon another human’s right to autonomy. We
should aim to treat people as an end and as a means by respecting the autonomy of
everyone else. Kant believes that it is also ok to treat people as a means because treating
people as a means still respects the autonomy of the individual that you are using as a
tool. For example when you go to the bank, you use the teller as a tool but the teller’s
autonomy is not being infringed upon. This is due to the fact that the teller is choosing to
be used by his choice for some reason whether it be to advance up the corporate ladder or
to save up money to go to college. The reason is not important as long as the choice to be
used as a means is made freely. Kant also makes it clear that you should never treat
people simply as a means when he states, “For all rational beings come under the law that
each of them must treat itself never merely as a means, but in every case at the same time
as ends in themselves.” Everyone has a right to autonomy.
“Autonomy of the will is the property that the will has of being a law to itself
(independently of any property of objects of volition). The principle of autonomy is this:
Always choose in such a way that in the same volition the maxims of the choice are at the
same time present as universal law.” Kant defines autonomy of the will as the ability of
an individual to rule himself. In other words an individual must always the the ability to
exercise their own will. However an individual’s autonomy has its limitations. The will
of an individual must be moral and the intentions of any action must be morally
acceptable. Autonomy can be violated through coercion. According to American Heritage
Dictionary, to coerce someone is to persuade an unwilling person to perform an action,
using force or threats, against their will. According to this definition, coercion would
occur any time an individual’s autonomy was infringed upon since the right to free will is
being threatened. Therefore I will define coercion as any situation that autonomy is being
threatened. This is the definition of coercion that will be used throughout the paper.
An issue with Kant’s test is that he believes that coercion is wrong in all cases
because it violates autonomy. Kant believes that it is better to allow people to starve to
death rather than violate their autonomy. There are starving people all over the world in
third world countries that are just waiting for the day of their death to arrive. These
people are often born into unfortunate situations that make it impossible for them to
survive or make death something they hope for. Some people are so desperate that they
allow companies such as pfizer to infect them with diseases just to feed their families.
These test subjects often end up mutilated and in many cases dead. These are facts not
stories. There are numerous articles and court cases that deal with the mistreatment of the
dying people. This is not just some made up horror story but a real life atrocity. This is
the epitome of individuals being treated simply as a means. Now imagine a company that
needs cheap labor to help build up a developing country. This company comes into these
ravished lands and offers the dying jobs. The individuals will be paid next to nothing.
However, the contract includes food, shelter, and minimal healthcare for the entire
family. In other words these people would be treated as domesticated work animals.
Unfortunately, these are the best terms that the company can offer. Kant would have a
problem with this arrangement because the individuals have no other choice but to accept
the offer since anything is better than death. Kant would say that the individuals were
coerced into signing the contract for doing so is the only way to survive. No matter how
bad the contract is, it is a much better alternative than being in a constant state of fear of
death. Kant thinks that it is better to let these people die rather than infringe upon their
right to autonomy. I cannot accept this. I believe that every human being has the right to
life which trumps autonomy. I would rather save someone’s life than do nothing but
watch them die slowly and agonizingly. I believe the company has done the morally right
thing.
Kant would argue that without autonomy an individual is living life as an empty
shell. A gear that turns and turns until finally it just wears down and gets tossed away. It
is morally wrong to treat a rational being simply as a means, because you are taking
advantage of an individual and not allowing them to use what separates humans from
animals, the ability to reason. Just like a tiger who has been caged all of its life loses the
fire in its eyes, the oppressed individual is slowly and painfully being crushed to death
until it, not he or she, can no longer take the pain and withers away. However, I still
believe that protection of life trumps the right to autonomy for the following reason. As
long as an individual is alive there will always be hope that he or she will be able to break
away from their oppressed state and eventually regain their autonomy. I agree with Kant
that autonomy is important to life like a human and not like a machine. But if living like a
machine creates a small glimmer of hope that maybe one day the individual can live life
autonomously, should we not preserve the individual’s life so that the hope can possibly
become a reality? If so you have bought my argument that preservation of life does
indeed trump the right to autonomy.
In conclusion, coercion is not always morally unacceptable. Treating someone
simply as a means is morally wrong unless if it can preserve someone’s life. For it creates
an opportunity for that individual to finally live a life of self autonomy. Furthermore,
coercion is not morally wrong. In fact coercion can save peoples lives. However,
coercion is a double edged sword that can save a life just as easily as coercion can kill it.
Used wisely coercion can save the lives of many, which is the ultimate moral good.