[jengoesup]

If a person acts on a maxim which, if applied universally to others, is self-defeating, has this person forfeited their rational nature?

[Lightknight]

Not if the nature of that maxim isn't self-defeating for themselves. Though how exactly to determine whether or not it is self-defeating seems to lie in hindsight unless otherwise obvious. For example, a man who decides he will steal from everyone but himself and is never caught, can't be considered one who has forgone rational thinking. But if he is caught, then the maxim was ultimately self-defeating because it got him in the end.

But if you were to preface the question by saying: "If a man adopts a maxim which is unharmful (or beneficial) to himself but harmful to others..." Then it could not be assumed that he isn't thinking rationally. People do this sort of thing all the time where money is concerned.

On the other hand, Kant clearly taught that we shouldn't use other people only as our means of getting something but instead as an end. Kant defined human dignity as one of the very greatest things in the Universe and such self-seeking means gained at the expense of others would be very against Kant's teachings. But morality was never really a question of rationality.

[jengoesup]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

Not if the nature of that maxim isn't self-defeating for themselves. Though how exactly to determine whether or not it is self-defeating seems to lie in hindsight unless otherwise obvious. For example, a man who decides he will steal from everyone but himself and is never caught, can't be considered one who has forgone rational thinking. But if he is caught, then the maxim was ultimately self-defeating because it got him in the end.

Well in this case, we are talking about a woman who wants to profit off of the sickness of others. However, would she agree to being the one profited from?

On the other hand, Kant clearly taught that we shouldn't use other people only as our means of getting something but instead as an end. Kant defined human dignity as one of the very greatest things in the Universe and such self-seeking means gained at the expense of others would be very against Kant's teachings.

Correct. What I am trying to figure out is if this person gives up their rational nature, and if so, can we then use this person as a means to an end, since they are no longer a rational being.

[Lightknight]

Could you actually put the maxim into words to help progress the topic?

It seems to me that the woman is merely being immoral. Not irrational.

[jengoesup]

Well, she is not giving a woman a life saving drug because she wants to sell it for ten times the cost. So I guess her maxim would be something like "sell drugs at the price I want to no matter whether someone cannot afford it so that I may make profit".

[Lightknight]

In that case, the maxim is entirely rational since it includes the "price I want". It is just incredibly immoral. Kant would probably approve of using her as a means to an end because Kant would have been disgusted by her. Especially if the motivation of using her is to go against an immoral maxim.

[jengoesup]

SWEET. Because that's how I wrote my essay