3 Answers

  1. Kant was wrong. After all, a person cannot be a target. If the person is your own, you don't need to pursue him. He's already with you. And if it's not yours, then it's useless to seek.

  2. In full, this dictum from the Fundamentals of the Metaphysics of Morals is translated into Russian as follows:”Make sure that you never treat humanity, either in your own person or in the person of anyone else, only as a means, but always at the same time as an end.”

    It is interesting how Kant actually used the word “only” – a person can be a means, moreover, we constantly use each other for different purposes (if you don't like “we use each other”, you can replace it with “we rely on each other”). But one cannot see in a person only a means; he or she is always also an end in itself.

  3. Well, it's interesting enough, but in my opinion the second part of this dictum says that you don't need to achieve anything at the expense of other people's people, everything is clear here. But with the first ,in my opinion ,everything is more complicated, perhaps the author wanted to say that a person can be not only a goal that needs to be achieved, but also something more, the meaning of life. I tried to answer, but I'm just a little boy and it's too complicated for my little brain.

Leave a Reply