ple would be willing to actually do this. I know for but me it would be very hard to do. I'm not sure I would want to. But then again to look in on a perfect world and see I would have to agree it could possibly produce many favorable outcomes. Question 2 Of the two formulations we discussed of Kant on the Categorical Imperative then I would go along with the second idea it seems to be the most workable and valuable. This concept states that humans are the ends in themselves(mere means). Though this point seems to be very simple and idealistic, it could be sensible. Kant believes that the preservation of life is the number one duty in sensible individuals. This not only includes our lives, but also trying to help others in their lives. This is what he meant when discussing that humans are not means but ends. This goes on that humans aren't used to be methods to get somewhere or something by other humans. If this point was taken and used it could prove to be useful. People wouldn't be taken advantage of or manipulated. Unless it was some kind of mutual agreement. Human beings as ends include another aspect of life. That no cause if worth taking a human life to fix it. I would say I do agree with this opinion. I guess it's just the fact when you look at what's going on in the news and magazines and read that someone gave there life for that cause. Is anything worth losing your life? I feel kind of shamed because I wouldn't give my life for anybody's cause. I'm the only cause I know. I defiantly have things I have strong feelings about but I wouldn't give my life over it. I guess Kant's whole thought is how we should live life for its own sake. I guess I can kind of go along with that. Question 3 I use to work as a gymnastics coach and I had many parents of the children I teach telling of how well off they were to each other. It so makes me angry that they could sit there and basically brag to each other. I guess it jus...
