Cara Eaton is a second-year majoring in Philosophy.
Philosophy is all about attitude. Or at least, philosophy offers us a variety of attitudes (lenses or approaches to the world, more or less) which can help us transform our lives and, yes, our relationships.
Let’s start with that we can call the everyday practical attitude, adopted from contemporary philosopher C. Thi Nguyen’s excellent paper. In this attitude, we narrow our vision to simply assess an object’s apparent usefulness or belief system; for instance, under the everyday practical attitude, we would approach a hammer with the explicit purpose of hammering in nails. We might pay specific attention to its heft and hardness, narrowing our vision to only those qualities helpful for achieving our end. [1] Similarly, the everyday practical attitude applied toward others involves narrowing our vision to assess them based on their apparent usefulness to us—as means to an end.
On the other hand, the aesthetic attitude, an idea born from a long tradition of philosophical thought, is conducted autotelically (meaning the end is itself). It allows our attention to rove over all parts of an object and process it unfiltered. Aesthetic attention to the same hammer will enable us to notice the color of the hammer’s wood or the pattern of its rust, qualities we wouldn’t notice if we approached the tool with an everyday practical attitude. [1] Similarly, when we attempt an aesthetic attitude toward others, we grant them unfiltered, roving attention toward all parts of their personhood.
The aesthetic attitude demands that we pay attention to the value of the experience of attending itself (that’s the key to the whole thing). We allow our attention to rove over all parts of an object unfiltered. [1] Approaching othe human beings (not just hammers) with an aesthetic attitude will enable us to pay more unfiltered attention to all parts of their personhood and avoid viewing them based on our usually myopic sense of their usefulness.
Synthesizing Nguyen’s theory of aesthetics with a theory of morals brings us to Immanuel Kant’s famous Formula of the End of Itself. The formula is:
Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your person or the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.
While this imperative is convoluted and must be taken within the context of Kant’s entire moral theory (it is too often dumbed down to just the “golden rule”), it fundamentally states that we must never treat others solely as tools to achieve our goals but must always respect them as autonomous beings.
OK, but what does this all mean for Duke students? To wit, how can a young adult use all of this in real life?
Let’s dive into a super relatable scenario. Imagine a young woman named Maria who, with an everyday practical attitude, may approach a party to find a man who meets the pre-set ideal of a “perfect boyfriend.” Possibly without full awareness of the exact self-imposed limit born out of her attitude, she covertly screens every man she talks to for her preferred tax bracket, professional field, height, and facial features.
On the other hand, aesthetic attitude to an object or process is conducted autotelically. It allows our attention to rove over all parts of an object and process it unfiltered. Aesthetic attention toward the men she meets will allow Maria to uncover kindness, thoughtfulness, respect, and independence, qualities she would’ve ignored if she went into the party with the everyday practical attitude.
Approaching others with an aesthetic attitude allows us to pay more unfiltered attention to all parts of their personhood and avoid viewing them based on our usually myopic sense of their usefulness. With the aesthetic attitude applied, Maria has an unfiltered attitude toward the holistic qualities of the men she meets. She avoids viewing them based on her narrow sense of whether they’d fit her predetermined ideal of the “perfect boyfriend.”
By consciously using the aesthetic attitude, we respect others’ autonomy and manifest Kant’s Formula of the End in Itself (making Kant smile, of course, is the real goal here). Maria recognizes the inherent human worth of men by considering their personal qualities. She avoids viewing them solely based on their use to her and instead sees them as complete individuals. She respects their autonomy by being open to the totality of their qualities. If she were to go in with the everyday practical attitude, she would perhaps just have noticed their blue eyes or career in finance. This would have reduced these men to mere means to fit her ideal. Instead, Maria opens herself up to getting to know them for the autotelic pleasure of getting seen by another human. She now recognizes these receiving agents as ends in themselves.
The world of sexuality (a world of profound significance to many young adults) is rife with Kantian moral failures in which humans use each other as mere means—but I would argue that this transgression can be mitigated with an aesthetic attitude. It is possible to have sexual relations and simultaneously approach a Kantian plane of morality (even if Kant himself was a sex-after-marriage purist, a largely unrealistic position for the contemporary student and Lemur reader, I’m sure).
Let us now flip our scenario to focus on Aaron. In the everyday practical attitude, Aaron approaches an encounter with her with the predetermined purpose of reaching sexual satisfaction. He will use her body as a mere means to achieve this goal, even if this intention is not explicit in the forefront of his mind. If he consciously tries to pivot to the aesthetic attitude before their encounter, he will have a roving, unfiltered perspective toward her entire personhood.
Aaron opens himself up to an appreciation of Maria’s body for the autotelic pleasure of enjoying another human’s body. He possibly also opens himself up to her independent thoughts—maybe, with roving attention, he notices her sexual preferences as she communicates them during the act, removing his obsession with her satisfaction. Through this entire experience, Aar recognizes her autonomy, as he is now open to her totality. Aaron has transitioned his attitude away from viewing her as a mere means to satisfy himself, a view that objectifies her. Maria becomes a consenting human with many qualities both within and without the encounter. Aaron is now seeing her as an end within herself.
The issue of objectification is a difficult one to traverse in sexual philosophy, but the aesthetic attitude helps mitigate moral harm done. It is not sufficient to claim that simply asking for consent avoids objectification of the receiving agent. The receiving agent can consent to what she believes to be a mutually autotelic experience. In contrast, the giving agent secretly intends to use her as a mere means to his satisfaction. This mismatch of intentions is quite common. It happens that the giving agent gets verbal consent to the sexual act and still commits Kantian immorality by covertly using the receiving agent as an object. Nowhere in a typical statement of consent does the receiving agent consent to be objectified; she merely consents to the act. (If she consents to be objectified, that is ano debate.) However, normatively, a simple consenting “yes” is not enough. The aesthetic attitude plus consent helps the acting agent not only garner verbal affirmation but also open himself up to treating the receiving agent as an end within herself. This model is sexuality at its most moral.
Including this example demonstrates how my theory can be pertinent in activities where the urge to objectify is at its most extreme and the myriad ways one can apply it to other humans. It applies to both the tangible and intangible aspects of others and can be used in casual and intense interactions with them. Opening oneself up to the autotelic pleasure of knowing every other person in their totality is the most essential way to honor the autonomy of everyone we encounter.
In application, a user of my theory will try to adopt a roving, unfiltered attitude toward new acquaintances and familiars—friends, neighbors, and lovers, bringing themselves closer to appreciating the people in their life as ends within themselves. There is no perfect application of a theory that requires imperfect human effort, but a conscious mindset adjustment will help the user approach Kant’s imperative. We are not always cognizant of how we approach others with a predetermined use for them, just like we are not always cognizant that when we pick up a hammer, we only intend to use it for hammering nails. In practice, we’re often unaware of the qualities of receiving agents we miss due to myopia. Approaching non-autonomous agents and humans autotelically helps us appreciate them in their totalities. We can see them more clearly as ends in themselves.
By Cara Eaton
[1] Nguyen, C. Thi. “Playfulness versus epistemic traps.” Social Virtue Epistemology, 10 June 2022, pp. 269–290, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367808952-36.
[See also] Kant, Immanuel. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, translated by James W. Ellington, 3rd edition, Hackett Publishing Company, 1993, p. 429.
