German philosopher Immanuel Kant ( 1724 – 1804) was the all-time champ at rules-based ethics, concocting several useful formulations of what he called “the categorical imperative,”or the principle of absolute morality. All of them are, as absolutes, the starting points for hopelessly convoluted debates and “what ifs?,” but philosophy geeks love that stuff. For me, the main value of Kant’s absolutism as that they are useful for pinging ethics alarms.

Kant’s “Formula of Humanity” stated (in German, of course): “So act that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means,” or in the short version, “Never treat another human being as merely as means to an end.”

Abortion, for example, is an ethical controversy that Kant clarifies quickly: abortion rationalizers have long tried to duck the “Formula of Humanity” by denying that a fetus with human DNA created by humans that will grow to be a born and eventually a walking, talking, member of human society isn’t a human being at all, and thus killing it for the benefit of its mother isn’t using whatever it is as a means to an end.

You can get in the high weeds of Kant’s most famous rule here. For instance, Kant holds that it may be wrong for a person to treat himself or herself merely as a means: now there’s a metaphorical rabbit hole. But for the purposes of this post, let’s just look at two recent examples of people who probably can’t spell Kant, never mind recognize when they are defying him.

First, we have Australian journalist Kristen Drysdale, whose new TV show “What the FAQ” investigates the answers to viewers’ questions. (The fact that the show is called “What the FAQ” borders on signature significance, even in Australia, but I digress). “What can I legally name my baby?” has come up because Australia is one of those nations that gives its government the authority to tell parents they can’t name their child as they please if the government doesn’t approve of their judgment.

Valuing her viewers and her show over her son, Drysdale told the New South Wales (NSW) Births, Deaths, and Marriages agency that she wanted to name her newly born child “Methamphetamine Rules.” (She was going to name him “Nangs Rule;” “nangs” is Australian slang for nitrous oxide canisters. She decided against that name because the registry might not know the term.) She was certain that the name would be rejected so she could tell her viewers how the process works.

Oopsi!. Somehow, the kids name “unfortunately slipped through,” according to an embarrassed spokesperson for NSW Births, Deaths, and Marriages, who added that the registry’s process has been strengthened in light of the episode, and they will be “working with the family to change the baby’s name.” Meanwhile, the child is stuck with “Methamphetamine Rules” until his name is permanently and officially changed. The original name, however, will stay on the birth certificate, because, the spokesperson explained, “a name registered at birth remains on the NSW Births, Deaths and Marriages Register forever.”

But hey, Drysdale got a fun segment for her show, so it was all worth it, even the Immanuel Kant spinning in his grave part.

Our second Kant-deprived individual hails from the good ol’ USA. “Name Withheld” wrote “The Ethicist” columnist Kwame Anthony Appiah to ask if it would be OK if she told her children that their father was a serial cheater during their now-dissolved marriage and has been lying to them about a number of other matters since the divorce. “Though I am extremely uncomfortable holding all of these secrets,” NW writes, “I believe sharing these truths will negatively impact my own kids and cause significant friction between me and my ex. Conversely, the values of truth and candor guide me in all of my other interpersonal relationships, and keeping such knowledge secret feels duplicitous and unethical. I struggle supporting a marriage [that is, his new one, yet to be finalized] built upon deception and dishonesty, primarily because my children are now a part of the equation.”

Suuure. She knows spilling the beans after a lifetime of keeping the father’s worst conduct from the kids will cause pain and strife, but “the values of truth and candor” have always guided her before. Obviously, the woman is furious at her ex-husband and harming his relationship with their kids is motivated substantially by revenge. The woman scorned’s letter to “The Ethicist” also notes that her ex’s fiancée doesn’t know that the bounder “had several ongoing secret relationships with other women during our marriage” and “believes she was his first and only affair.” She wants to tell the kids that, too. Of course, if word gets back to the bride-to-be, all the better!

“The Ethicist” gets this one sort of right (as he usually does), but takes—let’s see—352 words to do it, or more than a Harvard admissions application essay. He concludes in weenie fashion. saying, “I don’t know enough to calculate the likelihoods here, and perhaps you don’t either. But the interests of the children may weigh against truth-telling in this case. Candor is an important value; kindness is another. As so often in ethics, there are pluses and minuses to both action and inaction, and the hard task is taking account of both.”

“May?” Kant would just say “No. You are proposing using your children as merely a means to an end, and that end is unethical anyway.”

And so would I.