Y'know that feeling when you discover a channel on UA-cam? And it keeps getting better and better, the more you watch? And you become increasingly charmed the more familiar you become with the speaker? I've got that! 🤗 Big fan!
Is it good? Is it universal? Across the board? For All? No Matter What? Is it for humans, all creatures? 4:00 What is this good for? Qualifying - Good If Unconditional - Good 7:30 Good Shirt --> Lasts a long time, Comfortable, looks nice, Not Good for fighting Glasses --> Good for me, maybe not for you Pre-Conditions necessary for the object to be Good 11:25 Aren't The Virtues Good, Essential, Necessary, Not Requiring or Needing any conditions to be considered Good? 14:55 Happiness 16:34 Disney Channel Children --> Adulthood 19:02 Worthy What would be approved by an _Impartial Rational Spectator?_ Love? Always Good? Self-Respect? Always Good? Community? Always Good? 23:26 Does Good Will Require Qualification? 24:43 What is a Good Will? Action free from influence of subjective factors 27:52 (One able to act based on what happens and not urges of what happened) Doing Right for Right Reason (Because it is approved by Good Will?)
i have many teachers, ..........one of them has moved me on to another grade. (.....and even though i am happy to advance,) ..........................i still miss that teacher but i think the last lesson this teacher instilled in me , .is this. (.....................i have to become..)
That's a good question. He shoots down various other candidates: intellectual virtues, moral virtues, goods of fortune, even happiness, attacking the main Stoic, Epicurean, and Aristotelian answers. But he doesn't give any general argument. Nor does he give an argument that a good will is good without qualification; I'm not sure it is. (What if you have a good will unaccompanied by any knowledge, skill, or good sense? You can do a lot of damage trying to help!)
It's a shame it ends up being so circular and unconvincing. I'm kind of astonished Kant takes no issue with this definition. One could easily phrase it like so: "What's good (without qualification) is doing what's good because it's good." Substitute the definition in "good"'s place and you get: "What's good (without qualification) is doing what's doing what's good because it's doing what's good because it's good." I also don't see how his qualifier does him any good as a response to the "good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes" objection. Surely just because you think your good intentions should be universalized, or because they're free from "subjective, particular determinations" that doesn't escape the criticism? You could still end up with bad outcomes. Which I know is a very consequentialist way of looking at it, but even still, it doesn't strike me as solving anything.
I agree with you. This kind of philosophy is TOTALLY the kind of thing I could see an alternate version of myself obsessed over, but the issues prevent me from even respecting it.
But how does Kant get an idea of 'the good' to start his whole chain of reasoning? Surely the human good cannot be arrived at a priori - or by transcendental deduction - thus there must be some sort of application to circumstances and a comparison with others, in a more Hegelian sort of process of determining a concept of good. Does Kant appeal to a Platonic type of ideal form of the 'good', if so, how does he suggest we can know that?
Is good will good if it leads to a premature death? I feel like POTUS Hoover had a good will but his presidency deepened & made worse the Great Depression to the lives of millions.
Doing the right thing because it os right? For who? If we could apply conditions to other universal virtues why can we not ask of the same here? Why can the good will be examined under the stress of being applied to an evil person?
@@myothersoul1953 it really feels like Kant is simply making an argument that morality inherently lies in the intentions of the actor rather than the effects. Which is weird because the professor seemed to acknowledge that possibility with the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” bit. But I don’t know how else you could interpret it, because Kant isn’t arguing how the person can know their idea of right is objective. Sure, you can attempt to remove objectivity by working within the set of rules, like grading papers based on grading practices, but that sounds like a set of qualifications to me. I think the most charitable way to see it is that good will is “the intentional act of abiding by the qualifications of the moral system you are working with when you act, with intellectual consistency.”
One comment that I hope you see: is to search, in the right way, for the right thing to do, for the right reason not the very definition of communion with God? In the sense of God being the bedrock of reality, from which all things, and all goodness, springs forth?
I have always wondered this. What if the ability to rationally arrive to this "good without qualification", is God's gift to humanity as his children. After all, rationality is arguably what differentiates us from beasts.
Y'know that feeling when you discover a channel on UA-cam? And it keeps getting better and better, the more you watch? And you become increasingly charmed the more familiar you become with the speaker? I've got that! 🤗 Big fan!
Wow, thank you! I'm glad you like it!
Professor, you are incredible!
Is it good?
Is it universal? Across the board? For All? No Matter What?
Is it for humans, all creatures?
4:00 What is this good for?
Qualifying - Good If
Unconditional - Good
7:30 Good Shirt --> Lasts a long time, Comfortable, looks nice, Not Good for fighting
Glasses --> Good for me, maybe not for you
Pre-Conditions necessary for the object to be Good
11:25 Aren't The Virtues Good, Essential, Necessary, Not Requiring or Needing any conditions to be considered Good?
14:55 Happiness
16:34 Disney Channel Children --> Adulthood
19:02 Worthy
What would be approved by an _Impartial Rational Spectator?_
Love? Always Good?
Self-Respect? Always Good?
Community? Always Good?
23:26 Does Good Will Require Qualification?
24:43 What is a Good Will?
Action free from influence of subjective factors
27:52 (One able to act based on what happens and not urges of what happened)
Doing Right for Right Reason
(Because it is approved by Good Will?)
This is a great way to unpack a technically hard concept. It is good beyond qualification!
Learned more here than in the last 3 weeka with my proffesor!!! Thank you Soooo much!!
Bravo!!
Thank you for this video
Thank you!
i have many teachers,
..........one of them has moved me on to another grade.
(.....and even though i am happy to advance,)
..........................i still miss that teacher but i think the last lesson this teacher instilled in me ,
.is this.
(.....................i have to become..)
Very informative! Lots of good information, but do you have any help with his arguments? Why is it the only thing that is good?
That's a good question. He shoots down various other candidates: intellectual virtues, moral virtues, goods of fortune, even happiness, attacking the main Stoic, Epicurean, and Aristotelian answers. But he doesn't give any general argument. Nor does he give an argument that a good will is good without qualification; I'm not sure it is. (What if you have a good will unaccompanied by any knowledge, skill, or good sense? You can do a lot of damage trying to help!)
It's a shame it ends up being so circular and unconvincing. I'm kind of astonished Kant takes no issue with this definition. One could easily phrase it like so:
"What's good (without qualification) is doing what's good because it's good."
Substitute the definition in "good"'s place and you get:
"What's good (without qualification) is doing what's doing what's good because it's doing what's good because it's good."
I also don't see how his qualifier does him any good as a response to the "good intentions don't always lead to good outcomes" objection. Surely just because you think your good intentions should be universalized, or because they're free from "subjective, particular determinations" that doesn't escape the criticism? You could still end up with bad outcomes. Which I know is a very consequentialist way of looking at it, but even still, it doesn't strike me as solving anything.
I agree with you. This kind of philosophy is TOTALLY the kind of thing I could see an alternate version of myself obsessed over, but the issues prevent me from even respecting it.
20:04 sounds like a clockwork orange, lol
But how does Kant get an idea of 'the good' to start his whole chain of reasoning? Surely the human good cannot be arrived at a priori - or by transcendental deduction - thus there must be some sort of application to circumstances and a comparison with others, in a more Hegelian sort of process of determining a concept of good. Does Kant appeal to a Platonic type of ideal form of the 'good', if so, how does he suggest we can know that?
Great commentary. Put it better than I could but I suspected similarly.
I think he derives good from the inherently human necessity for it
Is good will good if it leads to a premature death? I feel like POTUS Hoover had a good will but his presidency deepened & made worse the Great Depression to the lives of millions.
I object to the idea that any ethical theory could apply to the Ferengi :p
ethical egoism could
Doing the right thing because it os right? For who? If we could apply conditions to other universal virtues why can we not ask of the same here? Why can the good will be examined under the stress of being applied to an evil person?
Why do u think about the human rights?
Seems like we can simply say that doing the right thing is good without qualification. So we don't need any "good will".
Yes, we can only infer good "will" from what people do anyway so it is simpler to leave the vagaries of "will" out of it.
@@myothersoul1953 it really feels like Kant is simply making an argument that morality inherently lies in the intentions of the actor rather than the effects. Which is weird because the professor seemed to acknowledge that possibility with the “road to hell is paved with good intentions” bit. But I don’t know how else you could interpret it, because Kant isn’t arguing how the person can know their idea of right is objective.
Sure, you can attempt to remove objectivity by working within the set of rules, like grading papers based on grading practices, but that sounds like a set of qualifications to me.
I think the most charitable way to see it is that good will is “the intentional act of abiding by the qualifications of the moral system you are working with when you act, with intellectual consistency.”
One comment that I hope you see: is to search, in the right way, for the right thing to do, for the right reason not the very definition of communion with God? In the sense of God being the bedrock of reality, from which all things, and all goodness, springs forth?
I have always wondered this. What if the ability to rationally arrive to this "good without qualification", is God's gift to humanity as his children. After all, rationality is arguably what differentiates us from beasts.
23:0 "Communion with God": I think this is not good candidate for "good without qualification" as it depends on human psychology.