Weininger shrank from the idea that an individual might be made the
means to an end, instead of being an end in itself. In my opinion his
justification for the translation of this formula--framed by Kant for
pure ethics--to empirical psychology, is doubtful. To use an individual
only as a means to an end which is alien to his inmost being, is
certainly immoral. But all social life is based on a mutual relationship
of means and ends; a man is an end in himself at the same time that he
is a means to other individuals and the community. The teacher is a
means as far as his pupils are concerned; the poet is a means in respect
to all who seek in his writings information or recreation. To carry the
stigmatisation of these facts to a logical conclusion, one would have to
call it immoral to accept anything from parents or teachers; one would
have to reject every good influence--which always comes from
outside--and become completely absorbed in the cult of one's own soul.
One would even have to object to being born, and would have to create
one's self out of nothing.
Pages:
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309