In drawing attention to the Karaniyametta Sutta, I have effectively identified a natural sympathetic responsiveness to others, a responsiveness often submerged not only by other and contending interests, but also by a conceptual veil that accompanies those interests. I have, however, also been appealing to that famous formulation of the Categorical Imperative, to treat ‘humanity’, whether in your own person or in that of any other, never merely as a means but always also as an end. Now, Kant’s notion of ‘humanity’ was criticized later by Schiller and Nietzsche for its damaging separation of our rational from our emotional being, though Kant’s concept of Reason was far less narrow than his critics supposed. But our focus just now is on the idea of ‘humanity’ as an ‘end’ and the nature of our relationship to it qua end.