• TheMadFool
    13.8k
    Philosophers frequently ask ''what is the meaning of life?''

    By that they're probably looking for some kind of purpose to life. What are we here to do?

    This question is one of utility i.e. we're asking, when looking for meaning/purpose to life, ''what should I/we be used for?

    Kant, if I'm correct, claims that we should view persons as ends in themselves and not as means.

    That basically means we shouldn't use people and that, of course, means people shouldn't be considered as having a purpose.

    No purpose, no meaning.

    It can be said that Kant doesn't mean what could be called self-purpose i.e. a purpose that is self-serving and not other-purpose like when people use someone to serve their own interests.

    But we live in a society and the self-purpose we seek is, in fact, the other-purpose - the instinct to be useful to others.

    So, does Kant mean that life has no purpose? Or, to dive into the deep end of the Kantian pool, does he mean that to have a meaning in life is immoral?
  • gloaming
    128
    "...That basically means we shouldn't use people and that, of course, means people shouldn't be considered as having a purpose..."

    I would take it as meaning that people shouldn't have your purpose. And if it that is true, then your subsequent statement is false. Rather straightforward.
  • Janus
    15.4k


    I think Kant would say that no overarching purpose to life can be demonstrated by pure reason, but that we have good practical reasons to believe in God, freedom and immortality. The overarching purpose of life for Kant, then, would be to do one's duty, in accordance with the way in which he conceived that duty; the categorical imperative. The overarching purpose would also involve educating oneself, "daring to know", becoming enlightened enough to be willing and able to take moral responsibility for one's own actions.
  • TheMadFool
    13.8k
    I would take it as meaning that people shouldn't have your purpose. And if it that is true, then your subsequent statement is false. Rather straightforward.gloaming

    You have a point and I mentioned it in my OP. Self-purpose (how one may use one's life) is different from other-purpose (how we may use other's life). The former, at first glance, doesn't break Kant's rule to not think of people as means to an end while the latter violates Kant's principle.

    However...

    1) The self doesn't exist in isolation. We're part of a some community or other. I think it's immoral to think of the self separate from whichever group it belongs to. I mean the worth of the self is measured in terms of how beneficial (useful) we are to the community. So, it follows that self-purpose is valued only to how it serves the other-purpose. In short when we think meaning of our lives we're actually thinking of our purpose in society. How good are we as means to the goals of a community. So, digging a little deeper, we realize that to seek meaning on life, from a Kantian position, is actually immoral. We're looking at ourselves as means to an end of a community or, worse, a single individual.


    Please read above.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.