Kantian+Ethics

To Immanuel Kant, a mixed martial arts competition would not be the same thing (morally) as assaulting someone in a street fight. According to Kant, there is one major rule to follow; the Categorical Imperative. When faced with a moral dilemma, "Act only according to that maxim by which at the same time will that it should be a universal law" (RTD 63). In other words, Kant believed that one should only act on principles that anyone, at any time, could act on. Furthermore, Kant believed in respecting others autonomy, that is, to never treat someone solely as a means, and always as an end. He believes that "every rational being exists as an end in himself and not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will" (RTD 65).

An MMA match is a competition of strength and skill; where two opponents enter into a fight under their own __free__ will. Nobody in this situation is being used solely as a means; the fighters are each ends unto themselves, acting under their own autonomy**--and being respected as autonomous by the other fighter.** On the other hand, in a street assault, one or more of the participants are using the other solely as a means to their end. Kant would most likely **certainly!** call this an abuse. A street assault could never be a universal law because if it was, people would be afraid to leave their houses **This isn't Kant's concern; it's a utilitarian concern.**, but the martial arts competition is perfectly fine as a universal law because it is voluntary. **Yes.**


 * 9.5/10**