0
SweetFreedom Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Kant’s principle?
1)Does “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”mean "act/behave in such a way that you treat humanity, whether for yourself or for others, merely as a means/tool/way for a purpose, but always at the same time treat humanity as an purpose itself"?
2) Does "from a ditch" mean "from an obscure place"?
Background info:
Everyone says no, but the moral philosopher wants to discuss the question further. Why is it wrong? Is it because of Kant’s Principle: “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.” How do we justify Kant’s principle? Are there ever exceptions? Could we imagine a hypothetical scenario in which . . .
What if the dying men were Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein and Martin Luther King? Would it be then right to sacrifice a man who is homeless and friendless, dragged in from a ditch? And so on.
2) Does "from a ditch" mean "from an obscure place"?
Background info:
Everyone says no, but the moral philosopher wants to discuss the question further. Why is it wrong? Is it because of Kant’s Principle: “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.” How do we justify Kant’s principle? Are there ever exceptions? Could we imagine a hypothetical scenario in which . . .
What if the dying men were Beethoven, Shakespeare, Einstein and Martin Luther King? Would it be then right to sacrifice a man who is homeless and friendless, dragged in from a ditch? And so on.
Top answer
1) Your understanding of "means to an end" and "an end" seems to be correct, but I think you missed out a "never" in your explanation. It says you should never treat humanity as a means to an end. "whether in your own person or in the person of any other" is talking about the places in which humanity resides.
- 1) Your understanding of "means to an end" and "an end" seems to be correct, but I think you missed out a "never" in your explanation.
- It says you should never treat humanity as a means to an end.
- "whether in your own person or in the person of any other" is talking about the places in which humanity resides.
- "whether for yourself or for others" is not quite the right meaning.
- 2) Not an obscure place, but a very lowly and deprived place, such as a homeless man might find himself in, perhaps even literally a ditch (trench in the ground).
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
1) Your understanding of "means to an end" and "an end" seems to be correct, but I think you missed out a "never" in your explanation. It says you should never treat humanity as a means to an end.
"whether in your own person or in the person of any other" is talking about the places in which humanity resides. "whether for yourself or for others" is not quite the right meaning.
"whether in your own person or in the person of any other" is talking about the places in which humanity resides. "whether for yourself or for others" is not quite the right meaning.
00
SweetFreedom1)Does “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”mean "act/behave in such a way that you treat humanity, whether for yourself or for others, merely as a means/tool/way for a purpose, but always at the same time treat humanity as
0
Related Questions