Let’s talk about the situationship—the modern relationship status that manages to be everything and nothing at the same time. You’re texting daily, spending every waking moment together, and maybe even meeting each other’s friends. However, the moment someone asks, “What are we?” the conversation suddenly becomes very awkward, very vague, or disappears entirely.
Now, enter an unlikely critic of this dynamic: Immanuel Kant.
Kant, an 18th-century philosopher best known for his strict moral framework and his limited patience for ambiguity, proposed what he called the Formula of Humanity. His formula reads “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.” In simple terms, his principle states to treat people as ends in themselves—as beings with dignity, autonomy, and intrinsic worth—not merely as means to fulfill your own desires.
This brings us back to the uncomfortable idea of a situationship.
At its core, a situationship operates with a lack of boundaries and clarity. While that ambiguity can initially feel freeing, it can also create room for unequal expectations. One person may view the relationship as meaningful and evolving, thinking it could one day enter the dating stage. The other may view it as temporary or convenient, with no plans to ever add a serious label. If that second person is aware of this imbalance and continues to participate without addressing it, they are, in Kantian terms, treating the other as a means to an end. Someone who provides companionship, validation, or intimacy without being fully seen as a person with their own set of expectations.
To put it less philosophically and in simpler terms: the second person knows exactly what they are doing.
One of the main issues here is honesty. Kant places a strong emphasis on truthfulness because having all the facts allows individuals to make informed and rational decisions. In many situationships, honesty is replaced with carefully maintained vagueness. Phrases like “I’m just going with the flow” or “let’s not put a label on it” sound harmless, and maybe even appealing at first. However, they function as a way to avoid accountability. Without clear communication, one person may make emotional investments that the other person has no intention of ever fulfilling.
Without full information, consent becomes questionable. This is not in a dramatic sense, but rather in a deeply ethical one. If someone does not understand the full nature of the relationship, are they truly choosing it? Or are they merely adapting to it?
Of course, Kant’s critique does not focus only on the person avoiding commitment. It also extends inward and asks the person choosing to adapt to look into themselves. His philosophy emphasizes that we have a duty to treat ourselves as ends in ourselves as well. Choosing to remain in a dynamic where your needs for clarity, respect, or commitment are constantly being unmet can mean that you are accepting a role that reduces your own dignity. Settling for the confusion your situationship brings may be its own quiet violation of Kant’s principle. This is where the situationship becomes not only a romantic issue, but also a moral one.
Not all undefined relationships are inherently unethical. If both individuals are genuinely aligned, fully transparent about their intentions, and equally comfortable with the lack of structure, then the relationship can respect the autonomy of both parties. With those conditions met, even Kant himself might begrudgingly approve.
The reality is that many situationships rely less on mutual understanding and more on that sustained ‘grey’ zone. The vagueness, while convenient, often comes at the expense of clarity, accountability, and ultimately, respect.
The next time you find yourself analyzing mixed signals or wondering where you stand with someone, it may be worth looking at an 18th-century philosophy to ask yourself the practical question of: Am I being treated as an end in myself? Or as an option?
This may not be a typical dating guideline, but it serves as an effective one. If you’re still having doubts, imagine explaining to Kant what a situationship is. If he were to weigh in, he would ask if this is an honest and mutual relationship or just convenient for one of you. And if that question is hard to answer, well, that might be your answer.