Categorical Imperative Kant

The philosopher Immanuel Kant would determine the actions of the rescuer upon his deontological theory. The predominant concept behind the moral philosophy of deontology is the categorical imperative, which has two distinct varieties that can be found in Kant’s work, “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals”. The first is that one should, “Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (Kant, 2004). Kant details the second variation of the categorical imperative as he asserts, “If then there is a supreme practical principle or… a categorical imperative, it must be one which, being drawn from the conception of that which is necessarily an end for everyone because it is an end
With this knowledge, the rescuer can begin to realize what Kant would tell them to do in the first two situations by utilizing the first version of the categorical imperative. Concerning the first scenario, the maxim would be that the rescuer should must leave one of the groups to die in order to save the other, but this generates a vital problem. By rescuing either the group or the individual, the rescuer would still leave the other party to die. Additionally, Kant introduces the idea that human lives are only equal to other human lives as he states, “…man and generally any rational being exists as an end in himself, not merely as a means to be arbitrarily used by this or that will…” (Kant, 2004). This contradiction also carries over to the second instance, as the maxim would be that the rescuer would have to kill one person in order to save five others. So what would Kant recommend the rescuer to do in both of these situations according to the first type of the categorical imperative? Doing either action is immoral, but so is not acting as it results in the deaths of both
This is simply because the situation does not have a perfect solution and cannot adhere to any maxim because the outcome undesirably consists of someone dying. However, in the second scenario, the rescuer, as a human being, has a greater sense of loyalty to the duty that they should not kill anyone instead of leaving people to die. Therefore, Kant would persuade the rescuer to not kill the individual on the path in devotion to the first version of the categorical imperative. However, the second formulation of the categorical imperative produces some interesting applications for the rescuer in both scenarios as they must understand that humans should not be used for their own benefit, but as an end. In the first situation, the rescuer could let the lone person die not as a means to save the others, but the individual could be considered an unfortunate circumstance in a terrible scenario so that the rescuer can save five