Poor Kant, I think you are being a bit unfair to him.
Kant's categorical imperatives are true according to Kant regardless of their outcomes, that kind of is their whole point, so to dismiss them because of some bad oucome does not in itself invalidate them. Regarding the whole murderer at the door scenario, it is not clear if Kant's response is meant within a legal or moral context. Indeed in other works Kant has said it is not wrong to lie in general, unless one is breaking a contract or try to con someone, because rational agents are responsible for their own descison to believe the lie or not.
The question is then is if I lie to someone am I using them as a means to an end. I would say no, I'm not.
Kant's categorical imperatives are true according to Kant regardless of their outcomes, that kind of is their whole point, so to dismiss them because of some bad oucome does not in itself invalidate them. Regarding the whole murderer at the door scenario, it is not clear if Kant's response is meant within a legal or moral context. Indeed in other works Kant has said it is not wrong to lie in general, unless one is breaking a contract or try to con someone, because rational agents are responsible for their own descison to believe the lie or not.
The question is then is if I lie to someone am I using them as a means to an end. I would say no, I'm not.
