Kant’s piece was a hard read for me. Although it was only a few pages short, Kant’s writing was confusing and strangely worded. When I finally understood what he was talking about, I enjoyed playing around with the ideas of “means”, “springs” and “motives” in my head, but when I looked at Kant’s definitions again, they all seemed to be describing the same thing (or being.)
I understood “means” to be the ground of possibility of action, so that could be a person named James. I understood the “springs” to be: The subject ground of the desire, so if Julia were after James as a boyfriend, James would be the “means” and the “spring?” I understood “motives” to be: the objective ground of the violation, so what would be the motive in James and Julia’s case? Company? If someone could explain this to me, I would greatly appreciate it.
I also had a hard time understanding what Kant meant when he kept talking about “ends.” I have a hard time thinking of beings as “ends” because I think of “an end” as a destination, not a being. The only time I understood what he meant by “ends” was when he said “So act as to treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end-withal, never as a means only.” I understood this to mean: don’t use people to get to things.
The one thing I really agree with from Kant’s piece was “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” If I’m understanding this correctly, in judging a man by his treatment of animals, are we using animals as “means” and not “ends?” I find myself judging people very harshly when I suspect they don't treat animals with the respect I believe they deserve.
No comments:
Post a Comment