I want to bring some attention to a spectacular sleight of hand that occurs at minute 4 of this podcast:
"The way that I formulate the argument, just to get us started here, is that acts, the things we do, have ends. We act for an end. They have a purpose.
And that it is wrong to deliberately frustrate an act from attaining its end, from attaining its purpose."
I will draw your attention to the three instances of "end", first we have the noble, tautological, "have ends", actions have ends; then, following close behind we see "an end", we act for an end, those ends have been made into one now, singular end; and finally, "its end", the act, as an entity unto itself, has an end you mustn't interrupt.
"The way that I formulate the argument, just to get us started here, is that acts, the things we do, have ends. We act for an end. They have a purpose. And that it is wrong to deliberately frustrate an act from attaining its end, from attaining its purpose."
I will draw your attention to the three instances of "end", first we have the noble, tautological, "have ends", actions have ends; then, following close behind we see "an end", we act for an end, those ends have been made into one now, singular end; and finally, "its end", the act, as an entity unto itself, has an end you mustn't interrupt.