Week 12 · Chapter

Chapter 12 — Ethics III: Kant, Virtue, and the Trolley Problem

Introduction to Philosophy Free sample edition

The module's primary reading · ~45–55 minutes · Objective 6 (explain and apply the major ethical theories — utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, virtue ethics, and social contract theory — and the challenges of relativism and egoism, to moral cases), with Objective 2 (identify arguments, put them in standard form, judge whether they are valid, sound, or inductively strong, and test claims with counterexamples and thought experiments) carried forward · Read it first this week; the lecture, the slide deck, the tutorial, the quiz, and the Philosophy Workshop all build on it.

In plain language

Last week you met a theory that judges an act by the happiness it brings about. This week you meet two theories that look somewhere else. Immanuel Kant asks about duty (what morality requires of you, whatever you want) and about respecting every person. Aristotle asks about character (the kind of person your acts show you to be) and about living a good life as a whole. Then a famous puzzle about a runaway trolley puts all three theories on one case, so you can see where they agree and where they part, without anyone naming a winner.

Why you already care about this

Your phone buzzes. It is your friend's manager. Your friend skipped a shift yesterday to go to a job interview, and the manager asks you, "Was your friend really sick yesterday?" One word, "yes", would protect your friend. The truth might cost them the job.

Last week's theory, utilitarianism, would ask which answer brings about the most happiness for everyone affected. But many people feel that something else matters too. A lie is still a lie, even a kind one. And the answer you give says something about who you are: loyal, honest, or both, or neither.

This week gives each of those thoughts a theory. In 1785 Immanuel Kant published the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, which builds ethics on duty and on respect for persons. Long before that, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, an ancient Greek work, built ethics on character and on a flourishing life. And in 1967 Philippa Foot devised a case about a runaway tram that philosophers still argue about.

By the end of this chapter you will be able to:

define a maxim and tell a hypothetical imperative from a categorical one;
quote Kant's 2 formulas exactly as Abbott's translation prints them, with the translator named;
run the 3-step universal-law test on a maxim, and explain why the test is not the golden rule;
tell treating a person as a means from treating a person merely as a means;
state the rigidity objection to Kant and the reply from the Kantian side;
put Dataset B's argument 9 in standard form and key it for validity only;
define eudaimonia, the mean, and habituation, and explain why the mean is not a halfway point;
credit the runaway trolley correctly to Foot and the name "trolley problem" to Thomson;
compare utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, and virtue ethics on one case without naming a winner.

Carry this sentence with you: the reason, not the result; the person, not the formula.

Where we are

Already covered: Week 2, Arguments and Thought Experiments, gave you standard form, validity, and the categorical syllogism. Week 3, Plato: Reality and the Forms, introduced the ring of Gyges. Week 10, Ethics I: Relativism, God, and Self-Interest, asked whether morality is relative and why anyone should be moral. Week 11, Ethics II: Utilitarianism, gave you the first theory from Dataset D, the course's table of 4 ethical theories.
This week: Kant's duty, maxims, and two imperatives; the formulas of universal law and of humanity; the rigidity objection; Aristotle's virtue ethics, eudaimonia, the mean, and habituation; the action-guidance objection; Foot's runaway tram and Thomson's trolley problem; and a comparison of three theories on one case.
How they connect: Week 11 asked whether an act is right because of what it brings about. This week asks whether duty and character matter as well, and the trolley tests all three answers at once.
Where we're going next: Week 13, Political Philosophy: The State, Justice, and Liberty, moves from how a person should act to what makes a government legitimate, and it brings in Dataset D's last theory, social contract theory.

Two tools from earlier weeks do the heavy lifting. From Week 2, you need standard form: premises numbered P1 and P2, the conclusion last, marked C and introduced by "So". You need valid (the conclusion cannot be false if the premises are true). You also need one form. The categorical syllogism is valid: every A is B; every C is A; so every C is B. Inside a form written in words, the letters name groups of things. From Week 11, you need utilitarianism's habit of counting everyone affected, because this week you will watch two other theories push back on the count.

1. Start from duty: Kant's maxims

Picture a store clerk counting out change. A customer has handed over a large bill and is distracted by a phone call. The clerk could keep a few dollars and no one would notice. But the clerk counts out every coin. Why?

Maybe because a camera is watching. Maybe because cheating could cost the job. Or maybe because short-changing someone is wrong, and the clerk will not do it. The act is the same in all three stories. Kant thought the reason behind it is what matters most.

Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) builds ethics on that idea. Here are its first two terms.

Duty — what morality requires of you whatever you happen to want; in Kant's ethics, the requirement an act must meet to be right.
Maxim — the personal rule a person acts on, stated with its reason, such as "When I need money, I will borrow it from a friend."

Every act has a maxim, even if you never say it out loud. The clerk's maxim might be "When I can keep extra change unseen, I will hand it back anyway." Your maxim on the phone call might be "When a lie would protect a friend, I will lie."

Moral worth — in Kant's ethics, the value an act has when it is done because it is right, not only because it pays or because you feel like doing it.

For Kant, what gives an act moral worth is the reason behind it: doing the right thing because it is right, not only because it pays. The clerk who returns the change only because of the camera does the right act. On Kant's view, though, the clerk who returns it because cheating is wrong does something more: that act has moral worth.

Dataset D gives the theory its row.

Kantian deontology — the ethical theory from Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) that puts duty and respect for persons first, asking whether you could will your maxim as a universal law and whether your act treats humanity as an end.

Worked example — reading Dataset D's row for Kantian deontology. Read the row one column at a time.

Central question: "Could I will my maxim as a universal law, and does my act treat humanity as an end?"
Key source: Kant (1785).
Puts first: duty and respect for persons.

Now state the view the way its best defenders would. A person is not a thing to be traded for a better total. Each of us can reason about what to do and set our own goals, and that gives every person a worth no outcome can outweigh. So some acts, such as deceiving or using a person, are wrong even when they would turn out well. Its strongest appeal is that it explains why rights and promises bind us even when breaking them would pay.

In one plain sentence: Kantian deontology judges an act by the duty behind it and by whether it respects persons, not by its results alone.

Misconception check — doing the right act is not the whole story for Kant. Students often think that, for Kant, all that matters is doing the right thing. It is tempting because the act is what we see. The cure is the clerk with the camera. Both clerks hand back the change, so both do the right act. On Kant's view, only the clerk who acts because it is right adds moral worth, since moral worth comes from the reason behind the act.

2. Tell two commands apart: hypothetical and categorical

Think about the advice you get in a week. "If you want to make the bus, leave by eight." "If you want strong arms, lift three times a week." Each one has an "if you want" attached. If you do not care about the bus or your arms, the advice has no hold on you.

Now think about "Do not lie" or "Keep your promises". These do not seem to say "if you want". They seem to hold whether you want to or not.

Hypothetical imperative — a command that tells you what to do if you want some end, such as "If you want to pass, study"; drop the end, and the command lapses.
Categorical imperative — a command that holds unconditionally, whatever you want, such as "Do not lie"; in Kant's ethics, the supreme principle of morality, stated in several formulas.

Worked example — sorting commands. Ask of each command: does it bind you only if you want some end?

"If you want to pass, study." It binds only if you want to pass. Hypothetical.
"If you want a job in the city, update your portfolio." It binds only if you want the job. Hypothetical.
"Do not lie." No "if you want" is attached, and it binds whatever you want. Categorical.

In words: a hypothetical imperative lapses when you drop the goal, and a categorical imperative does not. Kant held that morality speaks in the second voice. The course quotes 2 formulas of his categorical imperative, and the next two sections meet them.

Misconception check — "categorical" does not mean "felt strongly". Students often think a categorical imperative is a rule you care about a lot. It is tempting because "categorical" sounds like "absolutely, definitely". The cure is the test above. Someone can feel very strongly about "If you want to win the final, train every day", but it is still hypothetical, because it depends on wanting to win. What makes a command categorical is that no "if you want" is attached.

3. Test a maxim: the formula of universal law

Imagine a crowded concert exit. One person cuts the line by shoving past. It works, for that person, because everyone else is waiting their turn. Now imagine everyone does it. The exit jams, and no one gets out faster. The plan only worked because almost no one else was following it.

Kant turned that thought into a test. Here is the first pinned formula, in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation:

"Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork, trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott; Dataset C, Q7)

The words "thou canst" are Abbott's, the translator's, not Kant's own; Kant wrote in German. Quote the line with "trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott" every time.

Formula of universal law — the formula of Kant's categorical imperative that, in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation, reads "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

The test has 3 steps: state your maxim, imagine everyone acting on it, and ask whether you could still will it.

Worked example — the 3-step test on Dataset J, statement 3. Dataset J is the course's theory-matching set (illustrative). Statement 3 reads: "Lying to get a loan is wrong because a universal rule of lying-to-borrow would defeat itself."

Step one, the maxim: "When I need money, I will promise to repay a loan I know I cannot repay."
Step two, everyone acts on it: every borrower in need makes promises like that.
Step three, could you still will it? No. Lenders would stop believing promises to repay, so no one could get a loan by promising, and the maxim would defeat itself.
Dataset J keys statement 3 to Kantian deontology.

In words: the lying-to-borrow maxim fails because, made universal, it would destroy the very trust it depends on.

Here is a caveat. Kantians argue about how to state a maxim, since the same act can be described in more than one way. That debate is real, and the course keys no answer to it.

Misconception check — the formula of universal law is not the golden rule. Students often think Kant's test means "treat others as you would want to be treated". It is tempting because both talk about everyone. The cure is to notice what each test asks.

Golden rule — the rule to treat others as you would want to be treated, whose answer depends on what the person applying it happens to want; it differs from Kant's formula of universal law.

The golden rule asks about your wants. The formula of universal law asks whether your maxim could hold as a law for everyone, whatever you want. A borrower who would not mind being lied to still fails the loan test, because the lying-to-borrow maxim defeats itself whatever anyone prefers.

4. Treat people as ends: the formula of humanity

Stand at a café counter. You want coffee, and the cashier is how you get it. In that sense you are using the cashier. Is that wrong? Almost no one thinks so. You ask, you pay, and the cashier chose the job.

Now picture a group report at work. A coworker tells a new hire, "Do the research and the writing, and we'll share the credit." The new hire does it all. Then the coworker presents the report alone. Something has gone wrong that did not go wrong at the café.

Here is the second pinned formula, in Abbott's translation:

"So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only." (Immanuel Kant, Groundwork, trans. Thomas Kingsmill Abbott; Dataset C, Q8)

Formula of humanity — the formula of Kant's categorical imperative that, in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation, reads "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only."
Treating a person as an end — respecting a person as someone with their own goals and choices, whose agreement and purposes count, rather than as a thing to be used.
Merely as a means — using a person only as a tool for your own goals, in a way they could not agree to, as when someone is deceived into doing work another person takes credit for.

Worked example — means, but not merely, versus merely as a means. Run the formula on both scenes.

The café: you use the cashier as a means to get your coffee. You also treat the cashier as an end: you ask, you pay, and the cashier chose the job. That is permitted.
The group report: the coworker got the new hire's work by a false promise. The new hire could not have agreed to that deal, because the deal was hidden. That uses the new hire merely as a means.
Dataset J, statement 4 (illustrative): "Using a person merely as a tool is wrong even if it helps many." Key: Kantian deontology.

In words: the formula of humanity forbids using people only as tools, and it allows using people's help when you also respect them as people with their own goals.

Misconception check — "never as means only" is not "never as means". Students often read the formula as "never use anyone for anything". It is tempting because "never as means" is in the sentence. The cure is the last word, "only", and the café. You rely on cashiers, bus drivers, and teammates every day. The formula forbids treating someone merely as a means, not accepting their help.

5. Press Kant: the rigidity objection and argument 9

Every position gets its strongest objection. Go back to the phone call that opened this chapter. Your maxim is "When a lie would protect a friend, I will lie." Run the 3-step test. If everyone lied whenever it protected a friend, a manager could no longer trust any answer about a friend, so the lie would stop working.

Rigidity objection — the objection to Kantian deontology that its duties seem to allow no exceptions, even when keeping a duty, such as not lying, would let serious harm come to someone.

Worked example — the rigidity objection and the Kantian reply. Lay out the objection, then the reply from Kant's side.

The objection: the lie fails the test. Yet a lie that protects a friend from losing a job can seem permitted, even kind. A theory that forbids it looks too rigid.
The reply, from the Kantian side: the duty not to deceive protects the trust everyone depends on, and lying to the manager treats the manager merely as a means, since the manager could not agree to being deceived.
A second part of the reply: you still have an honest option. "That's my friend's to explain, not mine" deceives no one.

Here is an honesty note. Philosophers still argue about whether that reply works in harder cases, where staying silent would itself put someone in danger. The course keys no verdict.

In one plain sentence: the rigidity objection says Kant's duties allow too few exceptions, and the Kantian reply is that deception always treats someone merely as a means, while honesty usually leaves another way out.

Now test an argument with the same theme. It comes from Dataset B, the argument set (illustrative). Its premises were written for teaching, and the course does not endorse them.

Worked example — Dataset B, argument 9, in standard form. Lay the argument out line by line, then name its form.

P1: Every person deserves respect.

P2: Every prisoner is a person.

C: So every prisoner deserves respect.

Name the form. It is the categorical syllogism from Week 2: every A is B; every C is A; so every C is B. Here A = person, B = something that deserves respect, and C = prisoner. Key it: valid. If both premises were true, the conclusion could not be false.

P1 puts in plain words the idea behind the formula of humanity: every person, not only the people we approve of, is to be treated as an end. Is the argument sound? Soundness is not keyed. Its premises are open questions.

Misconception check — valid does not mean the course has proved the conclusion. Students often read the key "valid" as the course saying the conclusion is true. It is tempting because the key sits right next to the conclusion. The cure is Week 2. Valid only means the conclusion would follow if the premises were true. Whether P1 is true is a question for ethics, and the course keys only the form.

6. Turn to character: Aristotle and flourishing

Think of someone you admire, not for one thing they did but for how they live. Maybe a grandparent who was honest even when it cost them, or a teammate who stayed calm and fair under pressure. You admire the person, not only the acts.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, an ancient Greek work, starts there. It asks what a good human life is.

Eudaimonia — Aristotle's word for the human good, usually translated as flourishing: a whole life lived well, achieved by living according to the virtues.
Virtue — a settled trait of good character, such as courage or honesty, which on Aristotle's view is a mean between two vices and is developed by practice.
Vice — a settled trait of bad character; on Aristotle's view, each virtue has two, one of too little and one of too much, as cowardice and rashness flank courage.

Dataset D gives the theory its row.

Virtue ethics — the ethical theory, drawn from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, that puts character and flourishing first, asking what a person of good character would do and what helps a life flourish.

Worked example — reading Dataset D's row for virtue ethics. Read the row one column at a time.

Central question: "What would a person of good character do, and what helps a life flourish?"
Key source: Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics.
Puts first: character and flourishing.

Now state the view the way its best defenders would. Morality is about the whole of a life, not only single acts. You cannot become kind or brave by applying a formula once; you become those things by practice, and then good acts come from who you are. Its strongest appeal is that it explains why motive, feeling, and judgment matter. Two people can do the same act, one from kindness and one from vanity, and only the first shows a good character.

In one plain sentence: virtue ethics asks what a person of good character would do, because it holds that a good life is built from good character.

Misconception check — eudaimonia is not a good mood. Students often read "flourishing" as feeling happy right now. It is tempting because "happiness" is a common translation. The cure is the definition: eudaimonia is a whole life lived well, achieved by living according to the virtues. A hard week can still be part of a flourishing life, and a fun evening spent cheating a friend is not.

7. Find the mean and practice it

Picture a swimming pool on the first day of lessons. One young swimmer will not go near the deep end. Another wants to jump off the high board before learning to swim a full length. Neither one is being brave. The first has too little nerve, and the second has too much.

The mean — in Aristotle's ethics, the fitting response between too little and too much for this person in this situation, which is not an arithmetic halfway point.
Habituation — developing a virtue by practice, doing brave or honest acts again and again until acting that way comes from who you are.

Each virtue is a mean between 2 vices, one of too little and one of too much. Courage lies between cowardice, too little, and rashness, too much.

Worked example — a coach teaching courage. A coach decides how to teach courage to young swimmers.

The coach does not push a frightened beginner off the high board. That would train rashness.
The coach does not let the beginner skip every dive. That would train cowardice.
The coach sets a first dive from the low board, then a higher one, so courage grows by practice. That is habituation.
The mean depends on the person: for the beginner, the brave act is the low board; for an experienced swimmer, it might be a hard race.
Dataset J, statement 5 (illustrative): "Courage is a mean between cowardice and rashness, learned by practice." Key: virtue ethics.
Dataset J, statement 6 (illustrative): "Ask what an honest, generous person would do here, and how it shapes who you become." Key: virtue ethics.

In words: courage is the fitting response between too little nerve and too much, and a person becomes brave by practicing brave acts.

Every position gets its strongest objection, and virtue ethics has one too.

Action-guidance objection — the objection to virtue ethics that, in a hard case, "do what a person of good character would do" gives too little direction to someone who does not know what such a person would do.

The reply, from the virtue ethics side: the virtues give real guidance (be honest, be fair, be kind), every theory finds some cases hard, and a hard case calls for trained judgment rather than a formula. A limitation worth naming: the reply asks you to trust judgment, and judgment takes years to train.

Misconception check — the mean is not an arithmetic midpoint. Students often think the mean is exactly halfway between the two vices, as if courage were "medium fear". It is tempting because "mean" is also a word for an average. The cure is the pool. For the beginner, the brave act is the low board; for the experienced swimmer, it is a hard race. The mean is the fitting response for this person in this situation, and sometimes the fitting response is close to one end.

8. Run the trolley: Foot's case and Thomson's name

Now the week's thought experiment, the Week 12 case on the course's thought-experiment roster.

Picture a rail yard. A tram's brakes have failed, and it is running down the track toward 5 people who cannot get out of the way. The driver can steer onto a side track, where there is 1 person. Should the driver steer?

Philippa Foot devised that case in 1967. Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem" (The Monist, 1976) named it the trolley problem and developed variations on it.

The runaway trolley — the Week 12 case on the course's roster: Philippa Foot's 1967 case of a runaway tram whose driver can steer from one track to another, killing one person instead of five, asking whether it is permissible to kill one to save five.
The trolley problem — the name Judith Jarvis Thomson gave in 1976 to Foot's runaway-tram case and the variations built on it, which test whether consequences alone settle what is right.

The roster gives the case a question: Is it permissible to kill one to save five? It tests consequences against duties.

Worked example — the case and 2 variations. The first case is Foot's. The two variations are labelled as variations; the details here are the course's.

Foot's case, the driver: the driver can steer from one track to another, killing 1 person instead of 5.
The bystander variation: you stand beside a switch and can turn the trolley onto the side track, killing 1 instead of 5.
The footbridge variation: you stand on a bridge over the track beside a stranger wearing a heavy backpack, and the only way to stop the trolley is to push the stranger onto the track, killing 1 instead of 5.
The count: in the driver's case and in both variations, acting leaves 1 person dead and not acting leaves 5 dead, so acting means 5 − 1 = 4 fewer deaths. The count is the same in all 3 versions.

In words: the numbers never change across the 3 versions, so if your answer changes, something other than the count is doing the work.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Write two sentences on whether your answer to the driver's case and your answer to the footbridge variation are the same, and what you think explains any difference.
(b) Write two sentences describing one further variation of your own, labelled as a variation, that you think would pull your intuition the other way, and say why.

Misconception check — Thomson named the problem; Foot devised the case. Students often credit the runaway trolley to Thomson, because the name "trolley problem" is hers. It is tempting because the famous name and the famous case travel together. The cure is the pinned record: Foot devised the case in 1967, and Thomson named it the trolley problem in 1976.

9. Compare three theories on one case

Picture a classroom where three students each defend a different theory, and the instructor puts the trolley on the board. Each student reads the same case and the same count, and each gives a different reason. That is this section.

Worked example — three theories on the trolley. Run each theory on the driver's case and the 2 variations.

Utilitarianism, which puts consequences first, looks at the count. On that count the 3 versions are alike: acting means 5 − 1 = 4 fewer deaths each time.
A Kantian reading, which puts duty and respect for persons first, can tell them apart. In the footbridge variation, the stranger's body is used as a tool to stop the trolley, merely as a means. In the switch case, the 1 on the side track is not used, since the plan would work as well if no one were there.
Virtue ethics, which puts character first, asks what a person of compassion, courage, and good judgment would do, and what pushing a stranger would make of the person who does it.
Where they agree: all 3 take the 5 deaths seriously.
Where they part: whether the count settles the case.

Three ethical theories from Dataset D compared on the runaway trolley and its two variations
Theory	Puts first	What it asks about the trolley
Utilitarianism	consequences	Which act leaves fewer people dead?
Kantian deontology	duty and respect for persons	Is anyone used merely as a means?
Virtue ethics	character and flourishing	What would a person of good character do, and what would the act make of you?

Now tally where the course stands. Dataset D has 4 theories. This week compares 3 of them on one case, and 4 − 3 = 1 theory, social contract theory, waits for Week 13. Dataset J has 8 statements, 2 for each theory. Last week keyed 2, and this week keys 4 (statements 3 and 4 to Kantian deontology, 5 and 6 to virtue ethics), so 2 + 4 = 6 are keyed and 8 − 6 = 2 remain.

In one plain sentence: Kantian deontology judges an act by whether its maxim could be a universal law and whether it treats people as ends, virtue ethics judges it by what a person of good character would do, and the runaway trolley shows these theories and utilitarianism parting over whether the count of lives settles what is right, so the case stays open and the course keys no answer to it.

Pause and think, choosing one of these two options:

(a) Pick one theory from the table, and write two sentences on how it would answer the manager's phone call from the start of this chapter.
(b) Pick one theory from the table, and write two sentences on its strongest objection as you see it, and the best reply its defenders could give.

Misconception check — the trolley problem has no keyed answer. Students often think the trolley problem is a test with one right answer that philosophers already know. It is tempting because it is so famous. The cure is what the case tests: consequences against duties. Each theory gives its own reasoned answer, and the course keys none of them. Your job is to explain the reasons on each side so well that their defenders would agree with your summary.

Key terms

Duty — What morality requires of you whatever you happen to want; in Kant's ethics, the requirement an act must meet to be right. (first used: 1. Start from duty: Kant's maxims)
Maxim — The personal rule a person acts on, stated with its reason, such as "When I need money, I will borrow it from a friend." (first used: 1. Start from duty: Kant's maxims)
Moral worth — In Kant's ethics, the value an act has when it is done because it is right, not only because it pays or because you feel like doing it. (first used: 1. Start from duty: Kant's maxims)
Kantian deontology — The ethical theory from Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) that puts duty and respect for persons first, asking whether you could will your maxim as a universal law and whether your act treats humanity as an end. (first used: 1. Start from duty: Kant's maxims)
Hypothetical imperative — A command that tells you what to do if you want some end, such as "If you want to pass, study"; drop the end, and the command lapses. (first used: 2. Tell two commands apart: hypothetical and categorical)
Categorical imperative — A command that holds unconditionally, whatever you want, such as "Do not lie"; in Kant's ethics, the supreme principle of morality, stated in several formulas. (first used: 2. Tell two commands apart: hypothetical and categorical)
Formula of universal law — The formula of Kant's categorical imperative that, in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation, reads "Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (first used: 3. Test a maxim: the formula of universal law)
Golden rule — The rule to treat others as you would want to be treated, whose answer depends on what the person applying it happens to want; it differs from Kant's formula of universal law. (first used: 3. Test a maxim: the formula of universal law)
Formula of humanity — The formula of Kant's categorical imperative that, in Thomas Kingsmill Abbott's translation, reads "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as means only." (first used: 4. Treat people as ends: the formula of humanity)
Treating a person as an end — Respecting a person as someone with their own goals and choices, whose agreement and purposes count, rather than as a thing to be used. (first used: 4. Treat people as ends: the formula of humanity)
Merely as a means — Using a person only as a tool for your own goals, in a way they could not agree to, as when someone is deceived into doing work another person takes credit for. (first used: 4. Treat people as ends: the formula of humanity)
Rigidity objection — The objection to Kantian deontology that its duties seem to allow no exceptions, even when keeping a duty, such as not lying, would let serious harm come to someone. (first used: 5. Press Kant: the rigidity objection and argument 9)
Eudaimonia — Aristotle's word for the human good, usually translated as flourishing: a whole life lived well, achieved by living according to the virtues. (first used: 6. Turn to character: Aristotle and flourishing)
Virtue — A settled trait of good character, such as courage or honesty, which on Aristotle's view is a mean between two vices and is developed by practice. (first used: 6. Turn to character: Aristotle and flourishing)
Vice — A settled trait of bad character; on Aristotle's view, each virtue has two, one of too little and one of too much, as cowardice and rashness flank courage. (first used: 6. Turn to character: Aristotle and flourishing)
Virtue ethics — The ethical theory, drawn from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, that puts character and flourishing first, asking what a person of good character would do and what helps a life flourish. (first used: 6. Turn to character: Aristotle and flourishing)
The mean — In Aristotle's ethics, the fitting response between too little and too much for this person in this situation, which is not an arithmetic halfway point. (first used: 7. Find the mean and practice it)
Habituation — Developing a virtue by practice, doing brave or honest acts again and again until acting that way comes from who you are. (first used: 7. Find the mean and practice it)
Action-guidance objection — The objection to virtue ethics that, in a hard case, "do what a person of good character would do" gives too little direction to someone who does not know what such a person would do. (first used: 7. Find the mean and practice it)
The runaway trolley — The Week 12 case on the course's roster: Philippa Foot's 1967 case of a runaway tram whose driver can steer from one track to another, killing one person instead of five, asking whether it is permissible to kill one to save five. (first used: 8. Run the trolley: Foot's case and Thomson's name)
The trolley problem — The name Judith Jarvis Thomson gave in 1976 to Foot's runaway-tram case and the variations built on it, which test whether consequences alone settle what is right. (first used: 8. Run the trolley: Foot's case and Thomson's name)

Summary

Kantian deontology puts duty and respect for persons first (Kant, 1785).
A maxim is the personal rule you act on, with your reason.
A hypothetical imperative depends on what you want; a categorical imperative does not.
Quote Q7 and Q8 as Abbott's translation of Kant, never as Kant's own English.
The universal-law test: state the maxim, imagine everyone acting on it, ask whether you could still will it.
The formula of universal law is not the golden rule.
"Never as means only" forbids using people merely as tools, not accepting their help.
Dataset B's argument 9 is valid by categorical syllogism and is never keyed for soundness.
Virtue ethics puts character and flourishing first; eudaimonia is a whole life lived well.
Each virtue is a mean between two vices, and the mean is not a halfway point.
Foot devised the runaway tram (1967); Thomson named it the trolley problem (1976).
The trolley problem tests consequences against duties and has no keyed answer.

Check your understanding

Work these before looking at the answers — they are ungraded, and the answers (with reasoning) are at the bottom of the page.

Sort each command as hypothetical or categorical: (a) "If you want your tomato plants to survive the heat, water them every evening." (b) "Do not break a promise to a friend." (c) "If you want to finish the marathon, train for months."
Run the 3-step universal-law test on this maxim: "When I want to skip the line at the pharmacy, I will say I have an emergency."
Decide whether each act treats a person as a means but not merely, or merely as a means: (a) A family hires a dog walker, agrees on a fee, and pays it. (b) A neighbor gets someone to water their garden for a month by falsely claiming a family emergency, then spends the month on vacation.
A hiker reaches a stream swollen by rain. One friend says, "Wade across; only cowards turn back." Another says, "Never cross any stream." Using Aristotle's idea of the mean, explain why neither friend has described courage, and what courage might look like here.

Answers (worked reasoning — read after attempting)

(a) Hypothetical: it binds only if you want the plants to survive; drop that goal and the command lapses. (b) Categorical: no "if you want" is attached, and it holds whatever you want. (c) Hypothetical: it depends on wanting to finish the marathon. Feeling strongly about the marathon would not change that.
Step one, the maxim: "When I want to skip the line, I will say I have an emergency." Step two, everyone acts on it: everyone who wants to skip a line claims an emergency. Step three, could you still will it? No. Pharmacists would stop believing claims of emergency, so the claim would no longer get anyone to the front, and the maxim would defeat itself. On the formula of universal law, acting on it is wrong.
(a) Means, but not merely: the family uses the walker's help, but the walker agreed to the job and is paid, so the walker is also treated as an end. (b) Merely as a means: the neighbor got the help through a false story the helper could not have agreed to, so the helper was used only as a tool.
The first friend is urging rashness, too much nerve for the danger, and the second is urging something close to cowardice, a rule that never fits the situation. The mean is the fitting response for this person in this situation. If the water is fast and deep, the courageous act may be to turn back or find a safer crossing; if it is shallow and slow, it may be to cross with care. Courage is judged by the situation, not by a halfway point between the two friends.

Next up in this module: the Readings & Resources page, the lecture tutorial, the practice set, the quiz, the discussion, and the assignment. Next week, the social contract applies a new test, what rules rational people would agree to, to the question of what makes a government legitimate.

Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com