Mappcs’ own interpretation of the Kantian principle

1. Is Mappcs’ own interpretation of the Kantian principle – always regard persons as ends in
themselves and never as mere means – correct and does his interpretation of this principle
adequately capture the meaning of human freedom as the ethical standard when that is applied to
human sexuality? Justify your answers. Consider the rival view of Punzo. Would same-sex
marriages be morally legitimate from a Kantian point of View? Why or why not? Does the
Aristotelian and natural law tradition make a difference insofar as reason is regarded as being
embodied in male and female bodies?
2. Why does Kant pursue a purely retributive view of capital punishment against the utilitarians?
Is capital punishment consistent with the Kantian principle of regarding persons as ends in
themselves? Justify your answers. Consider the linkage between ethics and religion on this
issue. A
3. Does an anthropocentric or humanistic ethics such as Kant’s provide an adequate basis for
obligations to ammals and the env1ronment? Why or why not? Are there compelling ethical
masons for preferring the humamsnc or personalist framework Oyer sentienfism (“filitafiani sm)
an ecocentnsm? If so, what are they and why are they compelling?