We learned about Kant in one of my philosophy classes, and when we got to the formula of humanity, we talked about whether or not sugar daddies are ethical. It was an interesting conversation
These Crash Course videos are put together so well. The production value, articulate speaker, and condensed subject matter are all fantastic. Wish I had these around back when I was in school. Great stuff... Bravo!
My understanding of the categorical imperative is not that we wouldn't all want everyone to steal, but that universalizing theft would negate the concept of theft altogether. If stealing were the norm then property wouldn't exist in the way it does today. Stealing would become merely taking. If the imperative was to steal then the concept of stealing wouldn't be possible.
TheLaughingOut Yeah, I think it makes the most sense with lying. In a world where everyone lies, no one would trust anyone, contradicting the whole notion of communication (a concept necessary for deceit to exist).
TheLaughingOut You're being too semantic, whether there is a concept of ownership or not, someone taking things from you is the actiom under scrutiny. If I took every meal you haf away from you before you could eat, the result would be the same as if you owned the food and I took it away from you.
Joseph Martin If in a world where moral principles says to everyone to lie all the time and lie is good trait to follow then it will be similar to our world. Further teachings in that world be as it is.
George Economou By what standard do you imply that flexibility in ethics is > rigidity in ethics? I consider flexibility in ethics, which is branch of philosophy, an evil. The actual relationship is consistency vs betrayal of standards/faliure of integration. You might, by this comment so far, take this as a defense of Kant. No. In fact I despise the man. He can be called the epitome of "flexibility" in philisophic premises. Kantians always seem to move-the-goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes when the man is criticized. Which is related to how the goalposts fallacy is inherent in his metaphysics. Ayn Rand was the first philosopher in history to dissect and hard-refute the man. If you're not buying Kantianism I recommend Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It. Best regards.
Kants not an extremist philosopher... He is in the very centre of it. Hes not a fringe case nor from the periphery of European thought. Every German philosopher went on from his point. All philosophy of the 19th century and beyond were a commentary on kant. Its just a mystery to me, how anybody with the slightest interest in philosophy could even try to make him any less than that.
In Germany Kant is taught a LOT in philosophy classes and if you wondered, no his wording isn't more understandable in the German original. In fact it is even more confusing since he uses strange formulations like "durch die du zugleich wollen kannst" wich is a very strange usage of "durch".
Out of all the textbooks I had to read in college, I specifically remember the one by Kant as being the most incomprehensible. As thick as a phone book and each paragraph took an hour to read and understand, assuming I was able to understand it at all. I couldn't (and still can't) tell if he was relaying incredibly complicated ideas that were above my head or if he was just really bad at communicating.
@@osmium6832 my personal theory is that combined with it being very dense ans complicated which certainly makes it hard he also thought of "better" uses and meanings for some words. so if his books became groundworks of our language such as shakespeare's did it'd eventually grow to be more digestible.
I was really nervous about my Ethics test today because I didn't feel like my professor went over the information well enough, and we don't have a textbook for me to study. When I found this video, it cleared up all of my confusion about Kant's ethics. Thank you SO much.
It's only violating the 2nd Imperative if you are removing his ability to autonomously act on that information - if you planned to do something that he would find objectionable, but hid that information, for example. He can still say no, even if you're being moral, but that's simply because he has the autonomous choice to do so based on his own hypothetical and imperatives and such.
A warm thank you, to each individual involved in this educational production. I greatly appreciate all your efforts towards providing this helpful, and informative resource. Again, thank you all.
These are amazing shows! This is why UA-cam is 10000 times better than TV. Thank you all for making these. You make it amazingly easy for us to learn outside of the normal ways.
OMG I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EXISTENCE! I HAVE NO IDEA HOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH MY PHILOSOPHY ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT YOUR VIDEOS! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS!
I thought I had fully grasped the categorical imperative in my class, but I never actually knew that it meant that something that is wrong in one situation is wrong in every situation for all people. Thank you for clarifying this for me, my exam tomorrow will go all the better because of you! :)
OH MY GOD THIS VIDEO HAS HELPED ME SO MUCH!! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO READ KANT'S GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS AND I DID NOT GET ANYTHING UNTIL NOW!!! The Green brothers are a gift to humanity.
ı spend 40 minutes to understand the article about kant's ethics and ı understood NOTHING, but thanks to you guys in 10 minutes everything made sense about his thoughts :))) sending a virtual hug to all of you :D
Elivra should tell the truth, always, and say "no." In communication, humans often mean much more than the words coming out of their mouths. In the thought bubble example, the gunman is actually asking "will you help me to kill your husband?" That is the real question being asked, and thus the real answer is "no".
So greatly explained sir..i loved it ..i was in trouble with these Immanuel Kant maxims from a long time ..and now I became very much tensioned because I had my exam after some days..sir I am from India ..and have opted philosophy as my graduation course ..thank you very very much sir ,it really helped..!!!!!😊😊
I'm very grateful to have found these videos because they are helping me so much in my college level ethics and philosophy courses. It can be hard to understand the textbook but this makes the world of ethics make sense.
That's certainly a weak point in the philosophy as it's presented, but I think it still works with a slightly different perspective: When the Nazis come to ask if you have any Jews hiding in your house, lying to them is wrong, for the reasons stated above. However, telling them the truth or otherwise giving away that you are hiding Jews means that you allowed an even greater wrong to be committed, which you could have prevented. Thus, in both cases you are doing wrong, but telling the truth is by far the lesser wrong, so if you really have just those two choices, then that is what you should do. What the dilemma really shows is that it is impossible for a person to act morally right in every instance no matter what. Sometimes you need to choose between greater and lesser evils, or greater and lesser goods.
I think you miss typed there. "But telling the truth (That there are Jews in your home to a Nazi) is the lesser wrong." Do you mean lying and saying that there aren't any in your home is the lesser wrong?
Bryan, that's not what I understood from this video at all. If anything, it sounds like under strict Kantian morality, you would have to tell the truth. As presented in the killer-at-the-door thought bubble, if you lie and the Nazis find the Jews anyway, you're complicit under Kantian morality. If you tell the truth and they kill the Jews, then your hands are clean: it's only the Nazis at fault.
That's a false dichotomy, though. As the video states, you can refuse to answer. You can try to persuade the Nazi to not act the way they are acting. Would this put you at risk? Absolutely. But it would be moral. Now, let's universalize it. What if everyone acted this way, refusing to cooperate with the Nazis? Well, then the Nazis couldn't have done what they managed to do! This doesn't mean I wouldn't lie in that situation. What it means is that, if I did lie, I would have to acknowledge to myself that, strictly speaking, I acted immorally.
Good point allmhuran. I completely agree that I presented a false dichotomy and your option could be consistently universalized without any ethical dillemas. I was responding mainly to this though: "However, telling them the truth or otherwise giving away that you are hiding Jews means that you allowed an even greater wrong to be committed, which you could have prevented." The above quote basically misses the point of Kantian ethics. I'm much more a utilitarian, personally. It's going to be interesting watching the next episode.
The problem with the way you explained first categorical imperative is that you could choose any level of specificity to say that "that is always what should be done". If you said that anytime someone asked you to help them kill someone, and you then did actions to help prevent that killing, I think that would both fit Kant's first formulation *and* be the right moral thing to do. I think the problem was not being specific enough in that example. The question is not "Should everyone lie?" the question is "should anyone lie in this specific circumstance?"
Matt Bokovitz hey bro someone is searching for you and wants you dead. he has a gun. don't let him in? bro, it's pretty harsh. would you not let someone in if he was going to die? yes but... YES exactly. he wants to kill me! say that i am not home. Bro lying is bad. killing me is also bad. who cares about you!
@@pietrocelano23 Telling the truth to the murderer would also violate Kant's secondary categorical imperative. Your roommate doesn't think of your own end and only used you to prove his Kantian values.
@@61mbok you could tell the truth and also not give them away, like saying "i dont know" because, if hes in another room, he both could be there or couldve left until you check again. honestly just lie though, kants got great ideas but upholding the value of individual life as an ends in themselves seems important and equally in line with kant anyways
Before reading Kant, I arrived to the exact same philosophical manifest using, as my flagship operator, reason (with a reasonably fair concession with regard to general human kindness -- i.e. being less strict when it's obviously and presidingly better for the feelings of myself and others). I think that this, given that I have worked *very very* hard on my personal philosophy, is important -- I believe that my arrival to similar conclusions is a valuable point for any focused evaluation of the true nature of reality ever held in the future.
Thank you for covering Kant, one of the deepest and most complex thinkers of all time. This guy thinks. A really important point to expand on this video. In order to get to these laws from pure reason, you have to start with an axiom. Reason cannot proceed ex nihilo, since the truth it "creates" is always tautological. The axiom Kant relied upon was pretty simple: The only moral good in the universe is a "good will" - or in other words, agency. It's a pretty damn solid axiom. Try to imagine a universe without moral agency - ie, without anyone around to make decisions about what they ought to do. In this universe nothing can be moral and nothing can be immoral. Whatever is, simply is. From this irrefutable axiom Kant proceeds via pure reason to the various formulations of the categorical imperative. It's pretty amazing.
Thank you for raising this, it really helps to know the starting assumptions when looking at Kant's deontology. Also, what did you think of the interpretation of the first formulation? My thought was that the idea was to test an action according to its coherence (and consistency) when universalised: So in the example given, if in some world it is a universal law that people can steal things at their discretion, how could one be said to posses anything? My possessions could freely be taken by anybody and this would be perfectly legal and morally acceptable. Thus in this world, the idea of something that 'belongs' to someone else would not have any meaning. And if stealing is the act of taking something that 'belongs' to somebody else, then the act of stealing would not be a coherent concept in this world. I do hope this is clear.
I agree, that's the strongest way to express it. It's not quite as Hank presents, where in this case the maxim would trap us in an impractical stealing loop, but rather as you said, the concept of stealing becomes incoherent. Unfortunately, when applied in this extremely strict manner the scope becomes extremely limited - there aren't many occasions where duties become incoherent when universalized. Kant recognized this, and called these cases "perfect duties", whereas other cases, the "imperfect duties", are slightly more pragmatic, being based on the needs of rational agents rather than the requirements of reason itself.
Wow! Again, thank you - now I understand the link to perfect and imperfect duties as well!! I struggled to understand Kant's writing in the excerpts we were given in my ethics class. Any tips or reading recommendations you might have for this?
Reading Kant directly (edit: or a direct translation) is notoriously difficult, he's perhaps the most difficult philosopher you could ever try to read. But there are *lots* of other authors who have spent careers trying to understand Kant and writing their own analysis, some of which make things much clearer. Paul Guyer and Christine Korsgaard are a couple I've read.
Despite most people agreeing that people should not be "a means to an end", that ends with... children. Our society cares very little for the autonomy or will of our children, and we rationalize by saying "it's for their benefit". But according to Kant's first principal, having "a good reason" to do wrong doesn't make it right. And yet, the social contract that our society (perhaps _all_ societies) made has decided that children don't count as "people we have to act morally towards".
Supernova Kasprzak that's interesting. I think one could tie that into the crazed gunman at the door scenario. You would be trying to breach his autonomy for his own good (not going to jail for murder).
Some would argue that children are not fully "persons" yet. The point of being a person, rather an a human or an animal, is that people have the ability to form their own rational goals and ends, and to formulate means to achieve them; while also being able to recognise other people's goals and ends. Children, at least young children, lack the fully formed cognitive skills (logic [to reason], imagination [to form goals], and empathy [to see other people as ends-in-themselves]) to properly be considered people. Arguably.
Gregory Fenn Well if it's about autonomy adn capacity to be logical and think ... mentally handicaped (down syndrome, ABI, dementia, etc. and even young children).
Nice touch at 5:24 of using the sounds of the 1980's Pong game for the thought bubble animation of the guy trying to evade the person trying to kill him..
Jordan Warner Somewhat yes, somewhat no. Nietzsche believed that there was no absolutes about morality as we live in a godless society so it was our job to create morality, however he shunned our traditional concepts about ethics as "slave morality," celebrating weaknesses (not being strong enough to take what you want was labelled "humbleness," having a sexless life was "chastity" and so on.) For Nietzsche, we have lived the best life if the prosepct of reliving it for eternity is our own version of heaven. If this were true, we'd be an evolved form of man, an "ubermensch."
Was struggling with this topic in my religion and philosophy class, just stumbled across these videos and this has helped to simplify it for me. thanks, will check out some of the other ones.
"We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others." KANT!!! You can't make statements like that and assume they're philosophically true just because they sound nice. Even Kant heavily relied on a higher morality, specifically the higher moral Christain viewpoint of individuals being important.
NotAkira Not quite. Just because something is independently making choices doesn't make it have inviolable moral worth. That's not really explained in this video.
All morality is ultimately based on premisses, which have a bad reputation for not being as falsifiable as we would want them to be. And those premisses are always reducible to some human emotion or instinct.
"specifically the higher moral Christain viewpoint of individuals being important" This one can be explained logically fairly easily, I think. I (and, I presume, most people) want to be given importance as a person, and therefore must extend such importance to other persons.
In the fine Cartesian tradition of leaving your most important assumptions unstated. There is nothing "unnatural" about a sociopath if you're just talking about Nature. It's only post Prometheus/Snake that ethics becomes a thing.
He didn't value people from the point of view of a higher morality per se. He valued agency. His basic axiom was that morality can only exist if there are moral agents around to be moral or immoral, and so the only thing in the universe with moral value is the will of an agent. This is why "people" are assigned fundamental value by Kant. It's nothing to do with "souls" or other religious foundations of the value of life. It's a rationally produced axiom.
I think using reason is the best way to be moral. In the example, she couldn’t use reason because she didn’t have the understanding of the situation that happened. Her lying was the wrong action, but it doesn’t make her method wrong just not useful devoid of knowledge.
She wouldn’t be responsible for Tony’s death for knowing that Tony was about to be murdered and announcing, “Yes, he’s home!!!?” Which is far more likely to lead to Tony’s death than the twisted scenario involving a stupid Tony (smart enough to eavesdrop without being seen but not smart enough to run past where he knows the murderer is) that you described.
I'm a sucker for logically derived rules, but I kant agree with Kant here. (heh) I get the first imperative, but it seems to be understood too simplistically. There are a number of different situations that an act of lying or stealing can be based upon, and those actions can differ in desirability across all of them. In order to follow this rule to its full extent, you must analyze every facet of the surrounding situation and weigh each environmental factor against another. Second imperative seems pretty obviously flawed. Lying and deception can't never be okay. We deceive people as to our real impressions of them to be polite, we deceive people when we play strategy games, etc. Of course, you also have the extreme theoretical case of a murderer again; it is perfectly fine to deceive that murderer to buy time to let others escape them, but technically this would be denying the murderer their autonomy. Personally, I don't think there are any real moral laws; just moral rules of thumb. Breaking a "moral law" is okay in certain situations if you think it will benefit others more. It's not a perfect system where everybody is happy, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.
Well, there is a way to get around lying, and that is to simply address your motive. Like if your dying mother wants you to bury her with a coffin full of money in her will, you tell her you will do it. However, upon your mother's death, you instead use the money to pay off a friend's debts, motivated by the mutual love and respect for a friend in a sticky situation. Now you may appear to be lying and breaking a promise to your mother, but what promise and truth does one owe to the dead? Similarly, it would be like asking what Bruce Wayne owes to his dead parents. Also, to be specific, this is a more moderate deontological position to take, if the stakes are high.
Most any ethical imperative gets dicey for a non-omniscient agent, The consequences of our actions are not always (or ever) obvious. Also, this comes back to free-will vs determinism again: You make the ethical decisions you make on the basis of what you know and the kind of person you are.
illdiewithoutpi Sounds like you'll appreciate the next episode on utilitarianism. Spoiler alert: utilitarianism ALSO has some iffy consequences. They all do. It just comes down to which one you're willing to accept/ sweep under the rug.
illdiewithoutpi btw, I too am a sucker for logically derived rules, which is why I like Kant. It's hard for me to figure out how to adequately apply his rules, but I'm working on a way that's logically consistent and decently satisfying (to no avail). I think the way he applied it has a little bit of personal bias on his part, but foundationally it seems right.
No, polite lies are not okay. You are violating the autonomy of the person you lie to. By sparing the other person's feeling, you are giving them a distorted view of reality and denying them the opportunity to adapt their actions to reality, which can't be considered good. That's not to say I wouldn't tell polite lies, but morally it is not right, if you subscribe to Kantian philosophy. Utilitarians would disagree: "Hey, let me tell that lie, then I am happy. they are happy...where's the problem?" The problem is they probably know better what's good for them than you do. Kantianism is inconvenient, but it's a valid philosophical point of view. Constitutions have been written on this basis, for example the German Grundgesetz which begins with "Dignity of man is inviolable" - dignity meaning that humans are ends in themselves (Kant) and no person can ever be used just as a means to an end.
Kant's categorical imperative if really fallacious at times. If you lie for a good reason - to save someone's life - that is GREAT. Poor Tony just had bad luck but the woman is not responsible for his death. You can't look at outcomes to judge all moral behavior. Intention is important. I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
damm bro, what are you on!! this is amazing,i have been studying my study guide on Kant an di could not retain a thing and here you are literaaly singing it, thank you!!
[Utterly Updated, original below] I was wrong in my complaint about the dumbness of this example. I thought it was CC's fault but the fault lies with Kant. Since the previous example is about a chom-chom (which sounds un-1700s Prussia), and the murderer example was introduced with a "Let's say..." and Kant's first quote therein was clearly not a quote (because "Tony"), I incorrectly assumed that the murderer example was as much a creation of CC as the chom-chom one (presumably?) is. And since it's so dumb and only makes Kant look like a crazy person, I was very wrongly disappointed in CC for including it and so muddying the water. However, as it turns out the murderer at the door example is famously Kant's. I do think CC should have made this clearer, and also acknowledged that it's widely considered a head-scratcher. Google "murderer kant" and the first result is a paper that starts: "Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant's philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined." I'm just saying, maybe point out that this example is problematic. And unclear. And dumb. But still, that's on Kant and not at all on CC. I'm sorry I got mad at you, CC.
Kant's response to the 'murderer at the door' scenario has been touted as one of his weakest positions on morality. There have been a lot of attacks on and defenses of Kant's view of the scenario since he wrote about it, and if you're interested in seeing how people have tried to make sense and improve upon the absurd justification Kant offered himself, I suggest looking around online. It's a popular subject for philosophers and students of philosophy to write about.
So, in ethics there is a division between what is called consequentialism ("the end justifies the means") and deontology (following of moral rules or laws). Kant was a deontologist, which meant that he wasn't overly concerned with the consequences of moral actions. Instead, he cared about the intent of an action. So, in the example Hank gave, Kant would not have put any blame on the woman involved. The blame would have gone entirely to the killer, who was breaking a moral code ("don't kill people"). In the next video, Hank promised to cover utilitarianism, which in many ways was a response to Kant. One of the primary differences is that utilitarianism is strictly consequentialist. Only the consequences of your actions matter. So, in Hank's example, it would have actually been the woman's fault if her attempts to protect the man backfired on her. Hopefully the next video covers this.
Scowlie Meerkat His death isn't her fault because she lied. Her lie is her fault. One argument for Kant is that the ends NEVER justify the means, even for something as trivial as a lie. She can defend her friend, maybe even sacrifice herself to protect him, or try to convince the murderer not to murder him, but lying contradicts the whole principle and value of communication: to accurately communicate information. The fact that lying is most people's go-to solution for this problem doesn't mean Kant is wrong, it means people are weak and aren't very willing to be moral. They'll ditch their principles at the drop of a hat.
That is where the intentions and the maxim rules meet. While you may have good intentions about doing something, the test to see whether it is a moral course of action would be to universalize it as a non-contradictory maxim. Similarly, it must not break the rules of moral rules you have already set up. Generally speaking, this is the means by which Kant's philosophy trips up those who would carry out bad actions with good intentions.
MechaMarshmallow ¨ Okey, but what makes the maxim rule moral? I mean how do I know that the maxim rule is a guide for what is moral and for what is not?
The way we use animals would seem to be a case of violating that 2nd expression of the Categorical Imperative, though I doubt Kant would have seen it that way. And the Nazis would have got around the 2nd expression of the CI by defining "human" is a special way. And like the Golden Rule, in particular cases the Primary expression gets tricky for non-omniscient agents because people differ so much.
The way we use animals? There _was_ an entire episode on personhood, and if you consider animals people then I suppose you could say it's violating the 2nd expression of the Categorical Imperative. Your transition into talking about Nazis was a little abrupt; the subject of your previous sentence is the way we use animals, although I'm pretty sure you were talking about the 2nd expression, looking back.
@MakeMeThinkAgain Kant didn't think we had any direct duties towards animals because they couldn't reason about morality. Kant did, however, believe you shouldn't be cruel to animals because it could make a person develop cruelty to other people.
this channel is the reason im passing ethics
That not very ethical to your teacher
I agree, sometimes the way the information is given is not as easy to understand and Crash Course has the ability to help everyone understand it.
5:34 anyone else wondering why Tony had to take a bath at this crucial moment?
We learned about Kant in one of my philosophy classes, and when we got to the formula of humanity, we talked about whether or not sugar daddies are ethical. It was an interesting conversation
These Crash Course videos are put together so well. The production value, articulate speaker, and condensed subject matter are all fantastic. Wish I had these around back when I was in school. Great stuff... Bravo!
And by their support i will become bureaucrat soon. They were really awesome.
And the animation!
My understanding of the categorical imperative is not that we wouldn't all want everyone to steal, but that universalizing theft would negate the concept of theft altogether. If stealing were the norm then property wouldn't exist in the way it does today. Stealing would become merely taking. If the imperative was to steal then the concept of stealing wouldn't be possible.
@TheLaughingOut
That's what Kant says in "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals". I'm not sure why Crash Course presented it this way.
TheLaughingOut Yeah, I think it makes the most sense with lying. In a world where everyone lies, no one would trust anyone, contradicting the whole notion of communication (a concept necessary for deceit to exist).
TheLaughingOut You're being too semantic, whether there is a concept of ownership or not, someone taking things from you is the actiom under scrutiny. If I took every meal you haf away from you before you could eat, the result would be the same as if you owned the food and I took it away from you.
Yeah, there were a couple inaccurate examples and explanations given in this video. The explanation of why you shouldn't lie was way off.
Joseph Martin
If in a world where moral principles says to everyone to lie all the time and lie is good trait to follow then it will be similar to our world.
Further teachings in that world be as it is.
I really appreciate these crash course videos. I watch them before my readings, because Philosophy, in my opinion, is very difficult to read.
The extremist philosophers are always the most interesting. It's great to hear something a bit different.
How is Kant not an extremist? He doesn't gove morality any flexibility whatsoever. Kantianism is the epitome of rigidness in ethical thinking.
George Economou
By what standard do you imply that flexibility in ethics is > rigidity in ethics? I consider flexibility in ethics, which is branch of philosophy, an evil. The actual relationship is consistency vs betrayal of standards/faliure of integration.
You might, by this comment so far, take this as a defense of Kant. No. In fact I despise the man. He can be called the epitome of "flexibility" in philisophic premises. Kantians always seem to move-the-goalposts to what Kantianism constitutes when the man is criticized. Which is related to how the goalposts fallacy is inherent in his metaphysics.
Ayn Rand was the first philosopher in history to dissect and hard-refute the man. If you're not buying Kantianism I recommend Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It. Best regards.
Kants not an extremist philosopher... He is in the very centre of it. Hes not a fringe case nor from the periphery of European thought. Every German philosopher went on from his point. All philosophy of the 19th century and beyond were a commentary on kant.
Its just a mystery to me, how anybody with the slightest interest in philosophy could even try to make him any less than that.
The term "extremism" (and along with "centrism") is an anticoncept in the first place.
Yeah, because it's funny to see how full of arrogance they are
Awesome, The Good Place from Netflix brought me here. That Chidi boy got me going with the ethics and the philosophy. Way to go CrashCourse !!
ikr
In Germany Kant is taught a LOT in philosophy classes and if you wondered, no his wording isn't more understandable in the German original. In fact it is even more confusing since he uses strange formulations like "durch die du zugleich wollen kannst" wich is a very strange usage of "durch".
Out of all the textbooks I had to read in college, I specifically remember the one by Kant as being the most incomprehensible. As thick as a phone book and each paragraph took an hour to read and understand, assuming I was able to understand it at all. I couldn't (and still can't) tell if he was relaying incredibly complicated ideas that were above my head or if he was just really bad at communicating.
In my final philosophy class, when we had to move on to Kant everyone made a collective groan 😂
@@osmium6832 my personal theory is that combined with it being very dense ans complicated which certainly makes it hard he also thought of "better" uses and meanings for some words. so if his books became groundworks of our language such as shakespeare's did it'd eventually grow to be more digestible.
Why is it I learn more in 10 minutes of watching this channel than I do in an entire semester of first year philosphy at uni????
"I remember you were a phliosopher, but can you tell me your name?"
"I. Kant"
XD I laugh so hard, almost spilled my drink XDXDXD
Handoko Widjaja shouldn't have, it's an old joke
How about "Aye, Kant" for an alternate punchline?
lol
😂😂😂😂
I was really nervous about my Ethics test today because I didn't feel like my professor went over the information well enough, and we don't have a textbook for me to study. When I found this video, it cleared up all of my confusion about Kant's ethics. Thank you SO much.
In my opinion, if Elvira just told the murderer that Tony was home, she would be a Kant.
Lucas Cottica Silveira loool
well played
lol!LOL!Lol!
Lol, I am sensing a double meaning there.
Clever lol
"No son I will not drive you to the mall. Your asking me is a violation of Kant's Secondary Categorical Imperative." "Awww Dad!!"
I'm screwed then
Pipe2DevNull But dad I recognize your humanity and not violating your autonomy! Dad!
It's only violating the 2nd Imperative if you are removing his ability to autonomously act on that information - if you planned to do something that he would find objectionable, but hid that information, for example. He can still say no, even if you're being moral, but that's simply because he has the autonomous choice to do so based on his own hypothetical and imperatives and such.
Time to become an Ubermench, son.
Poor Orin... The things that he'll have to deal with.
Categorical Imperative : What do you think?
Hypothetical Imperative :Well I -
Categorical Imperative : It doesn't matter what you think!
A warm thank you, to each individual involved in this educational production. I greatly appreciate all your efforts towards providing this helpful, and informative resource. Again, thank you all.
These are amazing shows! This is why UA-cam is 10000 times better than TV. Thank you all for making these. You make it amazingly easy for us to learn outside of the normal ways.
OMG I AM SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR EXISTENCE! I HAVE NO IDEA HOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO GET THROUGH MY PHILOSOPHY ASSIGNMENT WITHOUT YOUR VIDEOS! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS!
watch a 10 mins video save my hours to try find information/explanation online. good job guys!
I thought I had fully grasped the categorical imperative in my class, but I never actually knew that it meant that something that is wrong in one situation is wrong in every situation for all people. Thank you for clarifying this for me, my exam tomorrow will go all the better because of you! :)
Felt like I was drowning in my bioethics honours. I was so prepared to leave the field. This just restored some of the passion. Thank you!!!!
I love him, he is helping me to learn both english (I'm seeing his videos as a practice to listen people talking it) and philosophy
OH MY GOD THIS VIDEO HAS HELPED ME SO MUCH!! I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO READ KANT'S GROUNDING FOR THE METAPHYSICS OF MORALS AND I DID NOT GET ANYTHING UNTIL NOW!!! The Green brothers are a gift to humanity.
Immanuel doesn't pun, he Kant.
Arthur can't pun, because Schopenhauer.
He wants to stop philosophising but he just Kant.
Nice. You get top Marx in philosophical puns.
*claps*
Kant argue with that.
I seriously love the way you simplify all the complicated philosophy concepts! Thanks indeed!
ı spend 40 minutes to understand the article about kant's ethics and ı understood NOTHING, but thanks to you guys in 10 minutes everything made sense about his thoughts :))) sending a virtual hug to all of you :D
Elivra should tell the truth, always, and say "no." In communication, humans often mean much more than the words coming out of their mouths. In the thought bubble example, the gunman is actually asking "will you help me to kill your husband?" That is the real question being asked, and thus the real answer is "no".
This guy can explain!!! 🙌🙌I just understood Kant's Universal Law now, after soo long...Thank you soo much
there's always money in the chom-chom stand
Was searching for this, thank you :)
Thank you good sir, this was needed.
Combining 2 of my favorite things, ethics and Arrested Development.
well played
This was a beautiful comment, thank you!
this helped so much!! Crash Course is amazing, don't ever quit. you explained it way better than my philosophy professor.
Thank you, Hank. You are so much more understandable than my ethics textbook
Kant stand philosophy...
no need to be such a Kant
I Kant take this anymore
you Kant be serious
What did you call me!!?🤣🤣
You kant call people that
I love Kant. I'm currently reading 'goundwork of the metaphisic of morals'. It really is fantastic and strongly recommend it.
So greatly explained sir..i loved it ..i was in trouble with these Immanuel Kant maxims from a long time ..and now I became very much tensioned because I had my exam after some days..sir I am from India ..and have opted philosophy as my graduation course ..thank you very very much sir ,it really helped..!!!!!😊😊
Bless CrashCourse for this. My Philosophy lecturer has been too confusing this entire semester.
This video taught me more in ten minutes than an entire module of a DE Philosophy course. Thank you Crash Course.
I'm very grateful to have found these videos because they are helping me so much in my college level ethics and philosophy courses. It can be hard to understand the textbook but this makes the world of ethics make sense.
For me, this is the best of the philosopher's arguments you presented.
wow, considering how hard Kant is this was one of the best episodes up until now, very well written. great job.
Crash Course Philosophy is easily my favorite UA-cam channel.
This channel will truly help me pass my subj. Philosophy of law. ❤
I feel bad for the Jews who tried to seek asylum from the Nazis in a Kantian home... :(
That's certainly a weak point in the philosophy as it's presented, but I think it still works with a slightly different perspective:
When the Nazis come to ask if you have any Jews hiding in your house, lying to them is wrong, for the reasons stated above. However, telling them the truth or otherwise giving away that you are hiding Jews means that you allowed an even greater wrong to be committed, which you could have prevented. Thus, in both cases you are doing wrong, but telling the truth is by far the lesser wrong, so if you really have just those two choices, then that is what you should do.
What the dilemma really shows is that it is impossible for a person to act morally right in every instance no matter what. Sometimes you need to choose between greater and lesser evils, or greater and lesser goods.
I think you miss typed there.
"But telling the truth (That there are Jews in your home to a Nazi) is the lesser wrong."
Do you mean lying and saying that there aren't any in your home is the lesser wrong?
Bryan, that's not what I understood from this video at all.
If anything, it sounds like under strict Kantian morality, you would have to tell the truth. As presented in the killer-at-the-door thought bubble, if you lie and the Nazis find the Jews anyway, you're complicit under Kantian morality. If you tell the truth and they kill the Jews, then your hands are clean: it's only the Nazis at fault.
That's a false dichotomy, though. As the video states, you can refuse to answer. You can try to persuade the Nazi to not act the way they are acting.
Would this put you at risk? Absolutely. But it would be moral. Now, let's universalize it. What if everyone acted this way, refusing to cooperate with the Nazis? Well, then the Nazis couldn't have done what they managed to do!
This doesn't mean I wouldn't lie in that situation. What it means is that, if I did lie, I would have to acknowledge to myself that, strictly speaking, I acted immorally.
Good point allmhuran. I completely agree that I presented a false dichotomy and your option could be consistently universalized without any ethical dillemas. I was responding mainly to this though: "However, telling them the truth or otherwise giving away that you are hiding Jews means that you allowed an even greater wrong to be committed, which you could have prevented."
The above quote basically misses the point of Kantian ethics. I'm much more a utilitarian, personally. It's going to be interesting watching the next episode.
You know what?
You are the best teacher..
You make stuff more simple and fast and easy to understand!
Outstanding work!!
The problem with the way you explained first categorical imperative is that you could choose any level of specificity to say that "that is always what should be done". If you said that anytime someone asked you to help them kill someone, and you then did actions to help prevent that killing, I think that would both fit Kant's first formulation *and* be the right moral thing to do. I think the problem was not being specific enough in that example. The question is not "Should everyone lie?" the question is "should anyone lie in this specific circumstance?"
Found this while studying for a DSST, this whole series is amazing and really helping with testing out of Ethics in America. Thanks guys.
Lool this comment section is just filled with Kant jokes
So childish tbh
I just Kant stand it
HAHAHAHA
I KANTnot😂
Yes, but still very funny
today we have learned, kantian aren't great room mates.
why so?
Matt Bokovitz Elvira is kantian, any bells?
Matt Bokovitz
hey bro someone is searching for you and wants you dead. he has a gun.
don't let him in?
bro, it's pretty harsh. would you not let someone in if he was going to die?
yes but...
YES exactly.
he wants to kill me! say that i am not home.
Bro lying is bad.
killing me is also bad.
who cares about you!
@@pietrocelano23 Telling the truth to the murderer would also violate Kant's secondary categorical imperative. Your roommate doesn't think of your own end and only used you to prove his Kantian values.
@@61mbok you could tell the truth and also not give them away, like saying "i dont know" because, if hes in another room, he both could be there or couldve left until you check again. honestly just lie though, kants got great ideas but upholding the value of individual life as an ends in themselves seems important and equally in line with kant anyways
Morality aside, why would a murderer show up with a machine gun and ask nicely where is Tony, just pretend you're a friend or barge in
I just started college and THANK GOODNESS THESE EXIST!!!
Great video! I'm glad you got to Kant and how morals don't need supernatural directives.
Before reading Kant, I arrived to the exact same philosophical manifest using, as my flagship operator, reason (with a reasonably fair concession with regard to general human kindness -- i.e. being less strict when it's obviously and presidingly better for the feelings of myself and others).
I think that this, given that I have worked *very very* hard on my personal philosophy, is important -- I believe that my arrival to similar conclusions is a valuable point for any focused evaluation of the true nature of reality ever held in the future.
Looking forward to the video on utilitarianism. I've been hoping we'd get to that soon.
Utilitarianism
danananananananananananananananana
BATMAN
(watch the Utilitarianism video if you don't understand)
This really helped me understand Kant in my class where the prof is no help. I feel confident in writing my essay now. Thank you!!
Tell your professor to teach properly and stop acting like a Kant 😜
Thank you for covering Kant, one of the deepest and most complex thinkers of all time. This guy thinks.
A really important point to expand on this video. In order to get to these laws from pure reason, you have to start with an axiom. Reason cannot proceed ex nihilo, since the truth it "creates" is always tautological.
The axiom Kant relied upon was pretty simple: The only moral good in the universe is a "good will" - or in other words, agency. It's a pretty damn solid axiom. Try to imagine a universe without moral agency - ie, without anyone around to make decisions about what they ought to do. In this universe nothing can be moral and nothing can be immoral. Whatever is, simply is.
From this irrefutable axiom Kant proceeds via pure reason to the various formulations of the categorical imperative. It's pretty amazing.
Thank you for raising this, it really helps to know the starting assumptions when looking at Kant's deontology.
Also, what did you think of the interpretation of the first formulation? My thought was that the idea was to test an action according to its coherence (and consistency) when universalised:
So in the example given, if in some world it is a universal law that people can steal things at their discretion, how could one be said to posses anything? My possessions could freely be taken by anybody and this would be perfectly legal and morally acceptable. Thus in this world, the idea of something that 'belongs' to someone else would not have any meaning. And if stealing is the act of taking something that 'belongs' to somebody else, then the act of stealing would not be a coherent concept in this world.
I do hope this is clear.
I agree, that's the strongest way to express it. It's not quite as Hank presents, where in this case the maxim would trap us in an impractical stealing loop, but rather as you said, the concept of stealing becomes incoherent.
Unfortunately, when applied in this extremely strict manner the scope becomes extremely limited - there aren't many occasions where duties become incoherent when universalized. Kant recognized this, and called these cases "perfect duties", whereas other cases, the "imperfect duties", are slightly more pragmatic, being based on the needs of rational agents rather than the requirements of reason itself.
Wow! Again, thank you - now I understand the link to perfect and imperfect duties as well!! I struggled to understand Kant's writing in the excerpts we were given in my ethics class. Any tips or reading recommendations you might have for this?
Reading Kant directly (edit: or a direct translation) is notoriously difficult, he's perhaps the most difficult philosopher you could ever try to read. But there are *lots* of other authors who have spent careers trying to understand Kant and writing their own analysis, some of which make things much clearer. Paul Guyer and Christine Korsgaard are a couple I've read.
Thank you! I will check them out. :)
i have exams in a week, if i pass, it is thanks to this man not any teacher. Thanks Hank!
Literally just took a test on this today. You should've posted yesterday
Really love Kant's take on ethics...
I Kant even...
xD
Some jokes are im automatic, this was I Immanuel.
Jake Andrews ++++
Kant and Hotline Miami. Two subjects I never thought I'd see combined. Good job!
Despite most people agreeing that people should not be "a means to an end", that ends with... children. Our society cares very little for the autonomy or will of our children, and we rationalize by saying "it's for their benefit". But according to Kant's first principal, having "a good reason" to do wrong doesn't make it right. And yet, the social contract that our society (perhaps _all_ societies) made has decided that children don't count as "people we have to act morally towards".
Supernova Kasprzak that's interesting. I think one could tie that into the crazed gunman at the door scenario. You would be trying to breach his autonomy for his own good (not going to jail for murder).
I would indeed like to see a Kantian defending that.
I would argue that children, especially young children, are not autonomous, but instead gradually gain autonomy with time.
Some would argue that children are not fully "persons" yet. The point of being a person, rather an a human or an animal, is that people have the ability to form their own rational goals and ends, and to formulate means to achieve them; while also being able to recognise other people's goals and ends. Children, at least young children, lack the fully formed cognitive skills (logic [to reason], imagination [to form goals], and empathy [to see other people as ends-in-themselves]) to properly be considered people. Arguably.
Gregory Fenn Well if it's about autonomy adn capacity to be logical and think ... mentally handicaped (down syndrome, ABI, dementia, etc. and even young children).
Nice touch at 5:24 of using the sounds of the 1980's Pong game for the thought bubble animation of the guy trying to evade the person trying to kill him..
Since we are talking about morality and all that, are we finally going to discuss Nietzsche sometime soon?
Malte Koot THIS !!!!!!!!!!!
Malte Koot I imagine that would be the amoral thing to do.
Probably cover him towards the end. Wasn't he basically in favour of us creating our own morality?
In time my child...
Jordan Warner
Somewhat yes, somewhat no. Nietzsche believed that there was no absolutes about morality as we live in a godless society so it was our job to create morality, however he shunned our traditional concepts about ethics as "slave morality," celebrating weaknesses (not being strong enough to take what you want was labelled "humbleness," having a sexless life was "chastity" and so on.) For Nietzsche, we have lived the best life if the prosepct of reliving it for eternity is our own version of heaven. If this were true, we'd be an evolved form of man, an "ubermensch."
Was struggling with this topic in my religion and philosophy class, just stumbled across these videos and this has helped to simplify it for me. thanks, will check out some of the other ones.
So I don't think "Chom Chom" when I see a banana, but when I hear "Chom Chom" I think banana.
Best summary
One step at a time....
I just woke up to find this video and I'm actually gonna write an exam about Kant in less than 2h time! THANK YOU for the perfect timing!! :)
"I Kan't get no satisfaction"
Or maybe "I Kant get no consequences"
Or maybe you Kant type Kant without the apostrophe 😆
this is excellent. High production value + accurate/thorough to boot! Thanks
5:16 Imagine if you had your personal Kant always whispering into your ear.
That would be a nightmare. I strongly disagree with Kantian ethics.
Taking an ethics course, this video made it clear. thank you.
All of a sudden I'm reminded of my love for Arrested Development
There's always money in the banana stand, no truer words have been stated
No touching.
Her?
I've made a huge mistake
I’m a monster!
Love the music at the beginning of the lesson, puts me in learning mode.
One problem is if you don't see a certain group as human it allows you to do whatever to them.
Would not have passed PHIL 100 without this series
"We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others."
KANT!!! You can't make statements like that and assume they're philosophically true just because they sound nice. Even Kant heavily relied on a higher morality, specifically the higher moral Christain viewpoint of individuals being important.
NotAkira Not quite. Just because something is independently making choices doesn't make it have inviolable moral worth. That's not really explained in this video.
All morality is ultimately based on premisses, which have a bad reputation for not being as falsifiable as we would want them to be. And those premisses are always reducible to some human emotion or instinct.
"specifically the higher moral Christain viewpoint of individuals being important" This one can be explained logically fairly easily, I think. I (and, I presume, most people) want to be given importance as a person, and therefore must extend such importance to other persons.
In the fine Cartesian tradition of leaving your most important assumptions unstated. There is nothing "unnatural" about a sociopath if you're just talking about Nature. It's only post Prometheus/Snake that ethics becomes a thing.
He didn't value people from the point of view of a higher morality per se. He valued agency. His basic axiom was that morality can only exist if there are moral agents around to be moral or immoral, and so the only thing in the universe with moral value is the will of an agent. This is why "people" are assigned fundamental value by Kant. It's nothing to do with "souls" or other religious foundations of the value of life. It's a rationally produced axiom.
You totally just summed up in 10 minutes what my college teacher summed up in 2 weeks of 90 minutes class about Kant! now I can write my final xD
I have to say Kants morality principles are pretty sound and in many ways are in line with mine...
I think using reason is the best way to be moral. In the example, she couldn’t use reason because she didn’t have the understanding of the situation that happened. Her lying was the wrong action, but it doesn’t make her method wrong just not useful devoid of knowledge.
She wouldn’t be responsible for Tony’s death for knowing that Tony was about to be murdered and announcing, “Yes, he’s home!!!?”
Which is far more likely to lead to Tony’s death than the twisted scenario involving a stupid Tony (smart enough to eavesdrop without being seen but not smart enough to run past where he knows the murderer is) that you described.
Excellent explanation of a complex philosopher, Hank. Bravo!
I'm a sucker for logically derived rules, but I kant agree with Kant here. (heh)
I get the first imperative, but it seems to be understood too simplistically. There are a number of different situations that an act of lying or stealing can be based upon, and those actions can differ in desirability across all of them. In order to follow this rule to its full extent, you must analyze every facet of the surrounding situation and weigh each environmental factor against another.
Second imperative seems pretty obviously flawed. Lying and deception can't never be okay. We deceive people as to our real impressions of them to be polite, we deceive people when we play strategy games, etc. Of course, you also have the extreme theoretical case of a murderer again; it is perfectly fine to deceive that murderer to buy time to let others escape them, but technically this would be denying the murderer their autonomy.
Personally, I don't think there are any real moral laws; just moral rules of thumb. Breaking a "moral law" is okay in certain situations if you think it will benefit others more. It's not a perfect system where everybody is happy, but that doesn't mean it's not valid.
Well, there is a way to get around lying, and that is to simply address your motive. Like if your dying mother wants you to bury her with a coffin full of money in her will, you tell her you will do it. However, upon your mother's death, you instead use the money to pay off a friend's debts, motivated by the mutual love and respect for a friend in a sticky situation. Now you may appear to be lying and breaking a promise to your mother, but what promise and truth does one owe to the dead? Similarly, it would be like asking what Bruce Wayne owes to his dead parents.
Also, to be specific, this is a more moderate deontological position to take, if the stakes are high.
Most any ethical imperative gets dicey for a non-omniscient agent, The consequences of our actions are not always (or ever) obvious. Also, this comes back to free-will vs determinism again: You make the ethical decisions you make on the basis of what you know and the kind of person you are.
illdiewithoutpi Sounds like you'll appreciate the next episode on utilitarianism. Spoiler alert: utilitarianism ALSO has some iffy consequences. They all do. It just comes down to which one you're willing to accept/ sweep under the rug.
illdiewithoutpi btw, I too am a sucker for logically derived rules, which is why I like Kant. It's hard for me to figure out how to adequately apply his rules, but I'm working on a way that's logically consistent and decently satisfying (to no avail). I think the way he applied it has a little bit of personal bias on his part, but foundationally it seems right.
No, polite lies are not okay. You are violating the autonomy of the person you lie to. By sparing the other person's feeling, you are giving them a distorted view of reality and denying them the opportunity to adapt their actions to reality, which can't be considered good. That's not to say I wouldn't tell polite lies, but morally it is not right, if you subscribe to Kantian philosophy. Utilitarians would disagree: "Hey, let me tell that lie, then I am happy. they are happy...where's the problem?" The problem is they probably know better what's good for them than you do. Kantianism is inconvenient, but it's a valid philosophical point of view. Constitutions have been written on this basis, for example the German Grundgesetz which begins with "Dignity of man is inviolable" - dignity meaning that humans are ends in themselves (Kant) and no person can ever be used just as a means to an end.
This ought to be required teachings in our school system!
So Kant was the first person to put into words (though different words) the expression "Imagine others complexly".
Watching this for tomorrow's ethical exams. Nice.
UA-cam got it's recommendations right
"What is my purpose?"
"You pass butter."
I lov u HanK, i was depressing about this topic and now i m so happy of finding this video, it encourages me to study harder,.
People usually vacillate from Kantianism to Utilitarianism, as their will suits them.
Crash Course Philosophy covers all the topics I 'm learning in philosophy elective in college!
Kant's categorical imperative if really fallacious at times. If you lie for a good reason - to save someone's life - that is GREAT. Poor Tony just had bad luck but the woman is not responsible for his death. You can't look at outcomes to judge all moral behavior. Intention is important. I think Kant’s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
These videos save me hella hours from reading boring chapters. I shall subscribe
Forgot everything you said. Came back to learn it again, definitely subscribing this time. My bad bruh
Are you gonna fully cover Absurdism?
TheAbsurdist this !!!!!!
TheAbsurdist Camus Camus Camus camus Camus Camus Camus Camus Camus Camus Camus Camus Camus camus
I'm gonna make a guess that is of special interest to you.
1503nemanja What gave it away?
*****
Your pic.
I have an exam on Ethics tomorrow and this is one of the topics to be covered. Thanks a lot!
I love that the image for "new Xbox" is an original Xbox.
Spectacular Hank, Nicole, and Nick !
1:24
2+2 is four. Minus 1 that's 3 quick maths
Nice, Utilitarianism is my favorite of the popular ethical theories, with the only competition being the social contract.
damm bro, what are you on!! this is amazing,i have been studying my study guide on Kant an di could not retain a thing and here you are literaaly singing it, thank you!!
Love it how you took up the chom-chom thing.
[Utterly Updated, original below] I was wrong in my complaint about the dumbness of this example. I thought it was CC's fault but the fault lies with Kant. Since the previous example is about a chom-chom (which sounds un-1700s Prussia), and the murderer example was introduced with a "Let's say..." and Kant's first quote therein was clearly not a quote (because "Tony"), I incorrectly assumed that the murderer example was as much a creation of CC as the chom-chom one (presumably?) is. And since it's so dumb and only makes Kant look like a crazy person, I was very wrongly disappointed in CC for including it and so muddying the water.
However, as it turns out the murderer at the door example is famously Kant's. I do think CC should have made this clearer, and also acknowledged that it's widely considered a head-scratcher. Google "murderer kant" and the first result is a paper that starts:
"Kant's example of lying to the murderer at the door has been a cherished source of scorn for thinkers with little sympathy for Kant's philosophy and a source of deep puzzlement for those more favorably inclined."
I'm just saying, maybe point out that this example is problematic. And unclear. And dumb.
But still, that's on Kant and not at all on CC. I'm sorry I got mad at you, CC.
Kant's response to the 'murderer at the door' scenario has been touted as one of his weakest positions on morality. There have been a lot of attacks on and defenses of Kant's view of the scenario since he wrote about it, and if you're interested in seeing how people have tried to make sense and improve upon the absurd justification Kant offered himself, I suggest looking around online. It's a popular subject for philosophers and students of philosophy to write about.
So, in ethics there is a division between what is called consequentialism ("the end justifies the means") and deontology (following of moral rules or laws). Kant was a deontologist, which meant that he wasn't overly concerned with the consequences of moral actions. Instead, he cared about the intent of an action. So, in the example Hank gave, Kant would not have put any blame on the woman involved. The blame would have gone entirely to the killer, who was breaking a moral code ("don't kill people").
In the next video, Hank promised to cover utilitarianism, which in many ways was a response to Kant. One of the primary differences is that utilitarianism is strictly consequentialist. Only the consequences of your actions matter. So, in Hank's example, it would have actually been the woman's fault if her attempts to protect the man backfired on her. Hopefully the next video covers this.
Scowlie Meerkat His death isn't her fault because she lied. Her lie is her fault. One argument for Kant is that the ends NEVER justify the means, even for something as trivial as a lie. She can defend her friend, maybe even sacrifice herself to protect him, or try to convince the murderer not to murder him, but lying contradicts the whole principle and value of communication: to accurately communicate information. The fact that lying is most people's go-to solution for this problem doesn't mean Kant is wrong, it means people are weak and aren't very willing to be moral. They'll ditch their principles at the drop of a hat.
That is where the intentions and the maxim rules meet. While you may have good intentions about doing something, the test to see whether it is a moral course of action would be to universalize it as a non-contradictory maxim. Similarly, it must not break the rules of moral rules you have already set up. Generally speaking, this is the means by which Kant's philosophy trips up those who would carry out bad actions with good intentions.
MechaMarshmallow ¨
Okey, but what makes the maxim rule moral?
I mean how do I know that the maxim rule is a guide for what is moral and for what is not?
Your videos are saving me for my midterms! Thank you!
The way we use animals would seem to be a case of violating that 2nd expression of the Categorical Imperative, though I doubt Kant would have seen it that way. And the Nazis would have got around the 2nd expression of the CI by defining "human" is a special way.
And like the Golden Rule, in particular cases the Primary expression gets tricky for non-omniscient agents because people differ so much.
The way we use animals? There _was_ an entire episode on personhood, and if you consider animals people then I suppose you could say it's violating the 2nd expression of the Categorical Imperative. Your transition into talking about Nazis was a little abrupt; the subject of your previous sentence is the way we use animals, although I'm pretty sure you were talking about the 2nd expression, looking back.
QuantumSeanyGlass Funny, I just realized that and went back and changed it a little bit. Probably not enough.
@MakeMeThinkAgain
Kant didn't think we had any direct duties towards animals because they couldn't reason about morality. Kant did, however, believe you shouldn't be cruel to animals because it could make a person develop cruelty to other people.
Panurge Which at least better than Descartes.