Kantian ethics

"Treat everyone as an end in himself, never as a means solely."

Looking at the formula of universal law, and perhaps under the influence of R. M. Hare, some philosophers have professed to see Kant's ethics as founded in utilitarianism, albeit of the rule variety.

Looking at the formula of ends, I see his ethics as closer to the those of Hobbesian contract theory.

Of course, he says his inspiration is in Rousseau.

Free men are not sacrificed to the interests of others.

Not even when the others are the majority.

But are you more likely to be a winner or the loser if one is killed for body parts to save many?

So, really?

Du Contrat Social

Rousseau says at the outset that man's first law is to look out for his own conservation, his first cares are those he owes himself, and as soon as he reaches the age of reason, being sole judge of the means of his conservation, he becomes his own master.

How like Hobbes he sounds.

But there are many differences.

For one, Hobbes everywhere repeats the evils of anarchy are worse than the worst despotism.

Rousseau stoutly maintains tyranny can indeed be worse than anarchy.

He reminds us the slave is governed and lives or dies for his owner's good.

But legitimate government is erected by a people for their good.

Not an easy distinction for either Rousseau or Hobbes to maintain given, as they both say, people accept imposed rule so as not to be killed.

And that is exactly Seneca's - and Rousseau's, and Hobbes's - understanding of how people become or remain slaves.  

For another,  Rousseau denies the state of nature is a state of war, pitting each and every against each and every man - basing this on the unfortunate and false claim that war is a relation only among states, because "among things of diverse natures there can be no true relation."

Reading Hobbes's Leviathan. Property.

The right and power of Hobbes's Sovereign are absolute, irresponsible, and even totalitarian.

In a state of nature - that is, in a state of war - every man has an equal right to all things, he says, including even each other's bodies or persons.

As a necessity of peace, it belongs to the Sovereign to lay down rules creating property, determining mine and thine for each and all, providing methods for and conditions of exchange, and so on.

It is interesting to see how far Rousseau agrees with Hobbes about the transition from nature to political society.

For both, the surrender is total and the power unlimited of the Sovereign or General Will.

For both, property rights, justice, whose in particular is what in particular, and rules of exchange are creations of the sovereign, as they are for Hume conventions.