![we are not human beings we are not human beings](https://www.filmsforaction.org/img/large-wide/ed86931a-1009-4578-bca9-ab3a2c16ac3a.jpg)
Most of us are capable of some sort of moral reasoning. We might have a shot at devising a criteria if we look at moral thinking. So if we don’t limit the content or quality of goals, it would be hard not to qualify as rational.
![we are not human beings we are not human beings](https://www.quoteswave.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/We-are-not-human-beings.jpg)
![we are not human beings we are not human beings](https://miro.medium.com/max/800/1*BB9mk_zMFgvvvsHw1QkyEg.png)
They also act like they want to go out and lie down in certain spots. Do we really not believe that our pets behavior around mealtime means that they want to eat. Of course, other mammals seem to be able to set simple goals. It could be enough to set our own goals, whatever their content. Perhaps a requirement that these goals be rational is too strong. Human beings can certainly set their own goals. Kant argues that a rational being is a being that can set goals for itself. At the very least, this would include very few entities, and it might not include any being whatsoever. However, it doesn’t seem like we can require someone to be perfectly rational in order to count as a rational being. We often act as if we don’t know what is best for ourselves or anyone else. This irrationality seems to include goals. We fail to see the consequences of our own actions. We can find many reasons to think that human beings are not rational. In this blog, I am going to explore the concept of a rational being by asking if human beings are, in fact, rational. One of the formulations of the Categorical Imperative says that we should treat all “rational beings” as ends in themselves and “never merely as means.” We immediately need to ask what sort of entity counts as a “rational being.” Kant believes that a rational being is one who can choose its own goals and choose to act according to the moral law.