Matthews 1

Katherine Matthews
Professor Fahmy
PHIL 2030
10 November 2015
Kants Interpretation of Football
It is often asked whether or not the end justifies the means. Is it morally justifiable to use
questionable means to obtain a positive end? Immanuel Kant pushes the debate further by adding
the concept of merely a means and then applying the whole philosophy to humanity. A
compelling case to examine this principle being applied to a contemporary issue is the currently
much discussed case of college football. Colleges and universities make millions off the athletic
abilities of their players while the players receive no actual monetary compensation for their time
or efforts. Is this an example of the colleges using the athletes as a means or as merely a
means? Further examination of Kants theory will show that college football players are treated
as merely a means by the NCAA, universities or athletic associations because of the lack of
financial income, academic time constraints and the dangerous consequences of playing a sport.
In this paper, I will discuss how Kant would disagree with the way that football players are being
treated and how they should receive better management.
Kant writes in Practical Philosophy about the groundwork of humanity and good will. He
explains that good will is when someone does the right thing for the right reason, and when
someone has fundamental commitment to doing what is right despite obstacles (Kant 50). The
question constantly being asked is what qualifies as good will? Good will can be defined as
unconditionally good, good without exception or good in every circumstance. So is there such
thing as complete good will? Kant argues that every action is performed for the sake of duty and

Matthews 2
that behind those actions there is always an interior motive or maxim. According to Kant, the
maxim is where the moral code is truly revealed. It is more severely broken when it damages
something with dignity versus something with price. Dignity is something that is raised above all
price and there is nothing that can serve as its equivalent. Rational beings are the only things that
are capable of possessing this dignity. Therefore, treating humans merely as a means is an
immoral act.
After Groundwork was written, Thomas Hill wrote an interpretation of Kants formula of
humanity to further discuss treating someone merely as a means and as an end. He explains more
on the idea that if a person has the status of dignity, they must be treated as an end in themselves.
Hill clarifies that treating someone as an end in themselves is being aware that they are human
and have immeasurable worth and value. It is impossible to treat persons merely as a means and
also treat them as an end in themselves. The two concepts will never be compatible. If a person is
to treat someone as a mere means, they are not fully respecting that every rational being has a
special value (Hill 300). After Hill discussed all of this information, he asks the question of
how do we treat humanity as in ends in itself? (301) In other words, the question is asking
what is the moral way that humans ought to treat other people? Hill created the cluster of six
precepts to unpack this information.
Each of Hills six precepts outline what treating humans as an end in itself looks like. It
further explains the immorality that is associated with treating someone merely as a means. If a
person breaks even one of the precepts, then the person is committing an immoral action.
According to the first two precepts, we must treat persons only in ways that we could in
principle justify to them, and specific principles must not proceed as if dignity of a persons can
be compared and weighed against the dignity of others (Hill 306). This is saying that everyone

Matthews 3
must be treated in ways that can be justifiable and in an incomparable manner. The fourth precept
describes that objective ends must always take precedent over the subjective end, basically
saying that human life always has more value than the goods of life. The other precepts discuss
the importance of respect, moral status, and personal ends. All of these precepts inform society
on how to treat people with an appropriate moral consideration in mind.
After reading both Kant and Hill, I applied the formula of dignity to the topic of football.
The question being addressed is are football players being used merely as a means? I believe
that football players are victims of being treated merely as a means. The NCAA is receiving a
paycheck that is dependable on these players, while the players will receive absolutely none of
the money that they are responsible for making. Though some athletes are receiving money from
scholarships, they are prone to have accidents happen in a full contact sport. If an injury is to
occur that hinders the players ability to play, then they lose their scholarship. Without their skill,
they are useless to the NCAA. In this case, the talent of the player is being valued over the
player himself. This is directly breaking the fourth precept that Hill mentions. The subjective end
has a higher priority than the objective ends, which concludes in treating someone merely as a
means (Hill 307).
Another prime example of the NCAA not treating players with moral correctness is the
strenuous time commitment that can potentially harm the players academic career. Part of what
athletes are agreed to receive as part of the exchange is the chance at an education. However, the
players are required to attend almost all of their practices and games while also attempting to
keep their grades up. Because of this, a lot of players choose to go the easier route in school. The
time constraint causes them to not take the more challenging courses that universities have to
offer. This inhibits their ability to find good jobs after graduation, if they graduate at all. There

Matthews 4
are also students recruited by universities to come play football that might not otherwise been
able to attend the university with their grades alone. The courses can potentially be above their
ability to succeed. In these cases, the subjective end of football is being put above the objective
ends of the players future. This is clearly breaking the fourth precept and first precept of Hills
interpretation. There is no justifiable means to place an extracurricular subjective activity over
the academic future of a person.
Today, the most current and largest issue with football is the possibility of serious injury
or even death. I would argue that this is the biggest influence on how the NCAA treats footballs
player merely as a means. Their lives are at stake and yet the NCAA is still concerned with
making an income and progressing the popularity of college football. This is even more serious
than academic progress over football because this is a human life being valued under a sport. The
second precept mentions, there is no way to measure the dignity that one person contains. Why is
it that people with the talent in football are more likely to get injured than regular students? Who
says it is just to have that risk just because they are more skillful at contact sports? There is
absolutely no sort of justification to the potential death or injury of a person that is preventable.
So is there any evidence that exists to support that football players do actually receive
benefits? Kant and Hill both explain how treating someone merely as a means is considered
immoral and unjust with valid reasoning. The NCAA does break some of these main valid points,
but the players also are not completely being misused. They obtain benefits that other students at
the universities are not capable of receiving. The NCAA gives them a scholarship to receive an
education, even if the players choose the cop out major. They are in no way required to take
the easier major, even though most of them chose to do so because they believe in their chances
of going professional. If their football career fails, at least they still have a minimum three years

Matthews 5
of schooling to fall back on. Also, while the chances of injury and death are serious, the NCAA
does attempt to make the game as safe as possible. They do this with rules and regulations that
stop the chances of head on tackles and other serious potential harmful tackling moves. They are
taking steps toward protecting the players and their ability to play in the game. These benefits
can be great, but they do not outweigh the consequences of playing football according to the
rules of NCAA. While players have the potential chance of receiving these minor benefits, they
are not always assured in every circumstance. The university, on the other hand, is almost
completely guaranteed to make a profit off of the players. I believe each person should be treated
equally with the mindset that every human has immeasurable worth and value, and football
players are not receiving this equality by the NCAA.
Overall, the NCAA does not treat football players with the appropriate means that their
status of dignity deserves. Every person has a moral status that deserves to be treated as an ends
in themselves. The football players, just like everyone else, possess the dignity that creates that
moral status. The NCAA takes advantage of their skill, time and future to make a profit for
themselves. The players are being treated merely as a means for the NCAAs own personal
maxim. The NCAAs treatment of college football player is considered immoral and unjust in the
eyes of Immanuel Kant and Thomas Hill.