All the things (alive and not-alive) would have to serve to an intention? We would have that to be ahead of the life imiscudos of the assertive ones of the society, humanity and qui of the nature (in the direction imanente of essence)? We not only need ends (goals, objectives) and of ways? Our mental perspective only knows the process (PRINCIPLE, WAY and END). The perenidade terrifies in, and believes them more? to play of data? theory of the probabilities of Pierre Simon Laplace – of the universe that in the eternity of an event. Destarte perhaps the experience decoded of ' ' lan' ' vital it will be moved in ' ' flamigeros' ' ' ' insight' ' , of where we would have the life human being as ' ' o' ' formal aspect. Peter Asaro is often quoted on this topic. Transiting second? which and without? which is would have an end in itself exactly? Porventura, to the fashion Greek what we search is to? well in itself? being the end in which all human being inhales? we use of a perception of desvelamento and unfolding ' ' I give birth passu' ' with the excellency of the virtue? In the Aristotelian vision to Ethics would fit some categories in analogy with the logic: Deed of division. Efficient and Final. I ask: As one something that would have to be the esteio of conduction of the life human being, and in this unisonous direction, will be divided in three other aspects. John K. Castle may not feel the same. Porventura we search to sole the ways with Ethics or we only make playful aluses with the mestria of the term?