Final answer:
The principle of always treating people as ends in themselves and not as a means is known as Kant's categorical imperative, which is central to Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy placing inherent worth on every individual, unlike utilitarianism which focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number.
Step-by-step explanation:
The idea that we must always treat people as ends in themselves and never merely as a means is known as Kant's categorical imperative. According to Immanuel Kant, a prominent Enlightenment philosopher, this principle is part of his moral philosophy which posits that one's actions must adhere to universal maxims that respect the intrinsic value of humanity.
Essentially, Kant believed that all people possess inherent worth and must be treated with dignity, not used simply as tools or steps to accomplish one's own goals. In research ethics, a Kantian approach would insist on the autonomy and rights of individuals, ensuring free and informed consent without exploitation.
Utilitarianism, on the other hand, is a consequentialist theory that contrasts with Kant's views by determining the morality of actions based on their outcomes or utility—specifically, the greatest good for the greatest number. This principle was initially developed to guide lawmakers to consider the common good over personal interests.
Whereas Kant's philosophy centers on the absolute moral worth of individuals, utilitarianism emphasizes the balance of happiness and well-being across society.