Which philosopher is againts the whole theory of only using human beings as ends and not as means!? In other words, who would say that using people as means to achieve our goals is ok!? I am writing a paper on this topic!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
| Question Home |
Position:Home>Philosophy> What philosophy/philosopher is against...?Question: What philosophy/philosopher is against!.!.!.!? Which philosopher is againts the whole theory of only using human beings as ends and not as means!? In other words, who would say that using people as means to achieve our goals is ok!? I am writing a paper on this topic!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: Marx would say it's ok, if the people being used as means are the proletariat, the "workers of the world," and the person(s) using them are the social "fixers" who take from those who produce "according to their ability!." The second set of people the "fixers" are allowed to use are those who, "according to his need," require what was taken from those who produce!. But of course, that is what he blamed the capitalists of doing--using people!. It's just that capitalists expected "from each according to his ability and you all get paid the same, so everyone's ability must meet at least a certain standard or you won't get to work here!." Now, who's use of people as "means" seems more fair when you put it that way!? :)Www@QuestionHome@Com Be sure you use a spell checker on your paper!. I don't know of any philosopher who would advocate using people by any means for some goal!. If such a philosopher ever existed they would be rejected by virtually every other philosopher!. You are more likely to find such people in the religious or political areas!. Unfortunately religions and ideologies have not matured to the point of explicitly prohibiting that sort of ill treatment of others!. And those religious and political groups that do denounce the misuse of others have done a very poor job of letting everyone know!. That ought to be their number one message!.Www@QuestionHome@Com I believe that is an individual decision!. There are some feel that it is OK as long as you climb up the latter!. Other people have decided, it isn't a good thing to use a person as something to step on, to arrive to the place you want to be! Unfortunately both of these options have been done!. The world is a competitive place! The difference is how you are revered by other people, ---that guy is an ***, verses- what a nice person, he deserves to be successful! Which would you rather be know for! I opt for the nice guy! Hope this helps!!!!Www@QuestionHome@Com "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means to an end!." - Immanuel KantWww@QuestionHome@Com You seem to be referring to Machiavelli, author of "The Prince", who set forth the political rules of control and manipulation!.Www@QuestionHome@Com Only one word I am against!. NOTHING!.Www@QuestionHome@Com |