RE: An @baah/@mindhunter Case Study Question of Kantian Ethics Coupled With Utilitarianism To Boggle The Mind!
If you give the money to halo, you then lied and didn't give the money to who you promised then obviously you want to live in a world where people lie and don't keep their promises, so in the case of the later you used me as a means to your ends, thus you don't follow kantian philosophy:
“So act as to treat humanity, both in your own person, and in the person of every other, always at the same time as an end, never simply as a means.”
Because you didn't specify if you gave the money to halo, only considered it, one cannot come to a conclusion on what your maxim is, but I can say that your maxim in this situation is to consider the utility of my wish before deciding whether or not to keep the death bed promise. Therefore if there is a maxim to be derived it's that you would consider breaking a death bed promise if you consider it's utility as less then other options, but we cannot say if you would actually break the promise or follow through with giving the money to who I asked you to give the money to, as the premise only says you would consider, and not act on that consideration.
Keeps promise:
@ganjagirls get the money
Certainty:
Low
Give money to @halo
@halo takes selfies to help other Steemians
Certainty:
Very high
@mindhunter actions are discovered by an outside party:
Certainty:
Low :)
Obviously if you would have asked for an analysis of the options you would expect one, but having asked to figure out what maxim you adhere to you received that, not the former.
But in cases of promise breaking, deception, and coercion (to name a few) people act wrongly in using each other as mere means. For example: if George makes a promise to Joanne with the intention of breaking it, and Joanne accepts, then Joanne has been deceived as to George’s true maxim. Joanne cannot in principle consent to his scheme of action since she doesn’t even know what it is. She is being used as a mere means. Likewise, one cannot consent to coercion because consent requires having a choice.
To treat someone as an end requires that one not use him or her as mere means. Beyond that, we have a duty to promote others plans and maxims by sharing some of their ends, thus respecting others ends in the fullest way. But people’s wants are many, diverse and often incompatible, so we cannot help everyone.
To finish: A @mindhunter treat shall await thee in the NSFW section within a few minutes Time to set aside the deep Kantian neurons for the day for some pure hedonistic pleasure instead :)
Steem on @baah!