# Formula of humanity

> A term defined by the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, asserting that “one must not use an individual solely as a means to some other end.”

A term defined by the <German> philosopher <Immanuel Kant>, asserting that "one must not use an individual solely as a means to some other end."

## Rationale

The rationale for the formula of humanity is as follows.

1. Most humans have reason and the ability to set and pursue their own ends through reason. Such a **human** is called a **person**, and this characteristic unique to human persons is called **humanity**.
2. Because all persons have humanity, they possess **dignity**, unlike other animals, and all persons are equally dignified.
3. A person with humanity and dignity has both a **right to be respected** by other persons and a **duty to respect** other persons.
4. Using another person merely as a means to some end amounts to treating that person as something inferior to a person, such as an animal or an object. This fails to respect the person and is therefore wrong.

## The formula of humanity and animal rights

Kant argued that humans have no <direct duties> toward animals, only [indirect duties](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Indirect%20duty.txt). According to Kant, the animal next door is the neighbor's property, and I must not damage another person's property, so I have an indirect duty toward that animal. Animals have no rights in Kant's theory.

In <The Case for Animal Rights>, <Tom Regan> argues for the [rights view](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Rights%20view.txt), extending Kant's theory. Regan criticizes the conclusion that Kant's formula of humanity leads to: some humans, including <zygotes>, <embryos>, fetuses, infants in their first few years, and comatose humans, lack the capacity to set and pursue ends through reason. They are therefore humans but not persons, lack humanity and dignity, and consequently have no right to respect.

Regan sees the problem as arising because Kant's concept of a human is too broad and his concept of a person too narrow, and proposes the [subject of a life](https://wiki.g15e.com/en/pages/Subject%20of%20a%20life.txt) as an alternative. According to Regan, any <living being> with <perception>, <memory>, desires, beliefs, self-consciousness, intentions, and a sense of the future is a subject of a life, and all subjects of a life have equal inherent moral value.