Anyone able to explain to me how Kant goes from only do things if you can will the maxim behind them be a universal law to treat humanity always as an end, never a means?

Can you phrase your question more clearly?

In this reading I have from one of Kant's works, he notes that the categorical imperative is that I amnever to act otherwise than so that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law. Later, he offers another "formulation" for the categorical imperative, stating that it is to never treat humanity as a means, and always as an ends. I understand the gist of both arguments, but I'm not sure how they are logically equivalent. I'm looking for that link.

If it makes you feel better, I have a degree in philosophy and some of my professors weren't sure why Kant thought they were logically equivalent.

Also a philosopher, my books kind of skim over that part...heh.

The way I understand the Categorical Imperatives, they aren't one singular concept but multiple concepts that all define the demands of "moral law".

It's an extremist concept derived from a sense of duty. Categorical imperatives are both intrinsically good, and intrinsically valid, and must be followed at all times in all things.

The three "formulas" that he uses are:
1 ) Universal Law. This is where he states that categorical imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature." This is simply a complex way of saying that a maxim is only valid if it is infallible when considered as a universal law. So, if your maxim is that you will kill for personal gain, you must think through what would happen if everyone MUST kill for personal gain. This forms a problem (everyone dies). Therefor it is a fallible idea and wrong.

2 ) End in Itself. This states that you (and all rational beings) "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time." This is probably the hardest of the three to understand, but basically it boils down to this: rational beings are the "basis of all maxims of action". It sounds a hell of a lot more complicated than it really is. You exist, you are rational, therefore you are capable of contemplating a given maxim and applying it properly, whereas abstract things are not. The beauty of philosophy, however, is that all things are highly up for debate, so I'll likely be flamed for this interpretation.

3 ) Anatomy. This basically just states that the first two formulas should serve to help you determine your personal maxims.

This is, obviously, a VERY brief overview of the concepts. But I think the answer to your question is they are both logically explaining the same concept, but are not attempting to -be- the same concept.

You can also go to wikipedia, which has a basic overview of the three formulations(and where I verified the exact text of my quotes).

Just sayin'.

Wikipedia was mildly helpful. And thanks to all you folks who stated the ambiguous logical connection between the first and second formulations. Takes a weight off my back for sure. Means I don't have to worry so much about it in my paper if even my profs won't be too sure. =p

Kant was a religious person, or atleast his ideas are greatly influenced by religious ideas. I think he tried to make religious ideas appear secular, or atleast validate religious ideas by showing how they work secularly.

In that light, I see these two ideas as being logically equivilent if you make a bunch of unstated assumptions.

His unstated assumption /religious idea is the following paragraph:

To say they are equivilent is to basically argue that any universal law must/will in the end treat humanity as an ends and not just as a means. That is, the way you know if a law is universally a good law or not, is based on figuring out if the law treats humanity as an end or just as a means.

His actual philsophical argument / reasoning can be found after this line:

There is nothing wrong with saying that everybody must kill other people, if humanity is just a means for murder and murder is the ulitmate goal. However, since humanity is the ulimate goal (the ends) and not just a means, then murder is not a good universal law.

In other words, you can argue that something is a universal law, OR you can argue that humanity must be treated as an end and not a means. Both arguments will bring you to the same end result. Thus they are logically equivilent.

He is basically arguing, that you will never have a universal law that treats humanity as a means, nor will you ever treat humanity as a means and result in a universal law.

I believe the reason why the college professors previously stated "don't get it" is because they most likely have learned about exceptions to this rule, or have found other contradictions. However, I think they fully well understand that that is Kant's argument. I would not rely on your professors "not getting" something.

Hmm... like the murder comparison. Puts a lot of things into context. Thanks Daganev.

glad I can help!

I think the issue has something to do with the fact that there are supposed to be "two formulations" of "the" categorical imperative rule. i.e. that they're supposed to be restating each other for clarification's purposes. This was how I always had it explained. I don't see, based on that, how you can argue that the formulations are logicall equivalent in the sense that they come to the same conclusions through different mechanisms.

I was always a Mill kinda girl, though, I'll admit.

But if you're really having trouble with this and are concerned, I don't see why you can't go to your professor during office hours and explain where you're coming from and why you're confused. Given the different opinions that various professors can have (everybody has their own pet theories when it comes to things that aren't universally agreed upon in the community), the best thing you can do is to find out what your professor things.

This paragraph confuses me, and it might just be my own ignorance. But in my mind:

"that they're supposed to be restating each other for clarification's purposes. " == "formulations are logicall equivalent in the sense that they come to the same conclusions through different mechanisms."

To me, those two sentences effectively mean the exact same thing. Can you explain how they are different? I'm just not getting it.