ent does place a market value on human life Kant writes: "Now morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, for only thereby can he be a legislating member in the kingdom of ends”, survival of the individual in a group is the end. If we are to treat men otherwise, as a means to an end, we must make that a categorical imperative and we must treat it as if that action will be a universal law of nature laws to live by). Hence, to do harm to others, to place a market value on man, would be immoral since it would harm humanity. Likewise, it is immoral for the United States to sacrifice ten thousand lives in hope of saving more. It must be asked "what if everyone sacrificed ten thousand lives?". According to Kant’s theory of the Universal law, "We must be able to will that a maxim of our action become universal law, this is the canon for morally estimating any of our actions" (Kant). Perhaps it is a touch ironic that the very document the US was founded on reads: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." This, like Kant's moral philosophy of "universal maxims," proclaims that man has intrinsic absolute value. Yet, so quickly are we ready to disregard this declaration as our cost benefit analysis dictates. Slavery was abolished on the principle of the absolute value of man. Why should we disregard this now? Do we suspend the unalienable rights to life whenever it would be most prudent? The United States must ask itself whether it wishes to make a maxim of placing value on human life. It must be remembered that by lowering the value of life of others, we at the same time lower our own value. Governments and institutions are composed of a completely different dynamic than that of the individual. This leaves man curious ...
