Abstract
The following discussion aims at clarifying the formal relation between end and means in terms of constructive type theory. Philosophical tradition offers two opposed conceptions: a Machiavellian, on the one hand, dealing with end and means as to some extent independent items, and a Kantian, on the other, which regards the relation as analytical. The first seems to be both morally and logically unacceptable, but also the second one faces difficulties. I propose to resolve these difficulties along the lines of constructive type theory by considering the end of an action as the type of means which are apt to realise this end.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
