	Because of this relationship between literature and ethics, I believe that the disciplines can be profitably intermingled, and that each can be enriched by viewing it through the lens of the other. Although I believe that this intermingling can be beneficial in both directions, this paper will focus on how the greatness of a work of literature can be better understood by viewing it through the lens of the study of morality. In particular, I will examine various works of art from the perspective of three schools of moral philosophy. As a disclaimer, I am no expert in philosophy, and my interpretations of each of the moral philosophies presented is a basic one. However, I believe that my understanding is deep enough for my intentions: namely, to show that the principle of mingling the two disciplines can be useful in fostering a greater understanding of both.
	The first philosophy that I will use is Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative to always treat humanity as an end. Kant attempted to rationalize morality, giving rules and maxims for determining whether an action is moral. In his Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals Kant explains the categorical imperative of treating humanity as an end, saying “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means” . My position is that viewing a work of literature from the framework of this philosophy can help us to put one more face on why it is either good literature or bad literature. One specific way in which we can use Kant's categorical imperative is to examine the way that an author treats the humanity of his characters. Many a bad author uses his characters as a means of leading the reader to a predetermined philosophical position. All great literature allows its characters their liberty, and allows them to be themselves.
	One example of this is Dostoevsky's “The Grand Inquisitor”. Although Dostoevsky is teaching, and explicitly teaching, he does not allow his personal aims to overshadow the humanity of his characters. The Inquisitor, Ivan, and even Christ, contribute toward Dostoevsky's ends, but they do so of their own accord, retaining their individuality and humanity; they are not used simply as means. For example, Dostoevsky's Inquisitor is evil, but he is not a caricature of evil. The remarkable thing about the Inquisitor is the depth of his humanity. He is directly opposing Jesus Christ, in person, telling him things like, “Tomorrow I shall condemn Thee and burn Thee at the stake as the worst of heretics,” and , “Be angry. I don't want Thy love, for I love Thee not” . Dostoevsky masterfully creates a character whose very evilness is motivated by love. He not only does not treat the Inquisitor's humanity as a means, but rather helps to uncover and draw attention to it.
	This respect for humanity also works in the other direction. 