When attempting to use aspects of the Kantian categorical imperative, namely the formula of humanity, to understand the way modern society views the ethical treatment of many controversial issues, scholars today often find themselves in heated debate and deep-rooted division. Thomas Bushnell is one such scholar, who in his thesis exposed the significance of the formula of humanity to modern ethical decision making by using it to validate his belief that Kant cannot have epistemological grounds for ascribing rational natures to anything.
Bushnell uses simple scenarios where Kantian ethics illustrates the fact that the value of things is different from the dignity of objects possessed of rational natures, and therefore the duty of humans is based on the degree to which we distinguish between dignity and value. Like Bushnell points out in his essay, to legitimize Kant's formula of humanity, "one must know which objects in the world to take as having rational natures". It is precisely this argument that is really the heart of the controversy of many modern ethical crises, especially in the areas of bio and medical ethics, where the most encompassing and widely publicized issues are in the areas of abortion and embryonic stem cell research.
Both abortion and stem cell research involve the termination of something that can and will become life under the right conditions - a new human life. The problem: is this something really a thing, or is the correct term perhaps somebody? And do the conditions under which this something exists have the power to alter an object so much as to make it switch between value and dignity, in Kantian terminology? There is still no answer to these questions, t ...