What is the relationship between Kant's principle of universalizability and the principle of humanity? Do the two ever give conflicting advice? If so, which do you think is a better guide to our moral obligations?

Answer and Explanation:

Kant's principle of universalizability suggests that we do what we feel should be generalised or in his words universalised. I'm there words for something to be considered morally valid it should be generally satisfactory and not just apply to one person

On the other hand his principle of humanity suggests that we do those things that treat each human being as though he is the end not the means. In other words, we do not consider another human being to be something that could be used to achieve another thing but the sole purpose or end for which anything is done

The above do have contradictory applications since by generalizing a thing we could still be using a human being and not making him the end in this respect. I believe the best of the two principles however is the humanity principle since by holding this principle dear every human being would treat each other better and the universalizability principle would still apply.

question 1:

senate and house of representatives

i would try to answer the second question but i’m not 100% positive but i hope i

the answer to this question is d