Under Kantian ethics, is it permissible to expose participants to substantial risk of reduced autonomy or death even with consent?

• A. Yes, if informed consent is given
• B. No, unless the risk is minimal
• C. Yes, if potential societal benefit is high
• D. No, it is never justified

Answer: (D)

Kantian ethics centers on treating rational beings as ends in themselves, never merely as means. Actions must respect autonomy and be allowable under maxims that could be willed as universal laws. Exposing participants to substantial risk of reduced autonomy or death uses them as instruments for some other end, rather than recognizing their inherent worth as autonomous agents. Even if someone consents, this does not make such instrumental harm morally permissible in Kantian terms, because consent presupposes respecting the person’s autonomous will and a universalizable duty not to treat people as mere means. A policy that permits serious harm would rationally undermine the very possibility of autonomous choice and trust, so it cannot be justified. Thus, it is never justified under Kantian ethics, regardless of consent or potential benefits.