20:13 This (not the persn in particular) is one of the most beautiful faces and facial expressions one can witness. The moment of understanding, when something clicks. Learning is truly a something magnificent.
2:05 I love the way Prof. Sandel encouragingly tells the student (Matt), "Okay, that's good, Matt. That is Kant's answer." And Matt breaks into an encouraged smile.
Absolutely brilliant professor. I'll bet this is a favorite among students at the university. This series imparts a wealth of knowledge and aids in understanding social justice/injustice and the grounds for things like affirmative action, diversity, inclusion , etc. Well done sir.
I had that same response... why not say I'm not going to answer that. If I asked for someone's password they wouldn't lie or tell truth they'd simply say for security purposes I can't answer that.
I am encouraged that I read a whole page of comments on a youtube video, and not one person was accused of being gay or directed to kill themselves. One comment on an attractive woman, but not one vulgar suggestion. Great series as well.
This first half of the episode made me think about when some Germans were hiding Jews during the Holocaust. If a German asked you if there were Jews in your house you can't reply with "I don't know", that would of raised suspicion. It's hard to grasp the idea that you should not lie in any scenario but instead use a misleading truth.
The whole political system was built on inhumane ideas and Germany was a very bad place. If I had lived in those days and had been bright enough to understand what was going on I would have hided my friend and of course I would have lied to the police during those days of world war three. Straight.
I think we should, as a humanity, figure out if we have free will at all. And then, if we have, to discuss morality and etc. So the works of all these ancient philosophers are meaningless before that answer.
Regarding the scenario of a murderer asking for the truth, there is an idiom that states, "whatever is built on nullification is nullified." This principle applies here because the act of murder is inherently wrong-morally, ethically, and legally. Since the murderer is already acting outside the law and ethical boundaries, the question of whether lying to him is wrong cannot be applied in the usual sense. In this case, ethics, morals, and the law would treat the lie as a positive action-one that is aimed at saving a human life rather than assisting in a crime. If you were to tell the truth and enable the murderer to carry out his intent, you would become complicit in the act, making you a wrongdoer as well.
My pleasure. “Freedom is autonomous...Respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means but also as ends in themselves and this is why it’s wrong to use people". Prof. MICHAEL J. SANDEL
Prisoner Of Paradise Not answering is question isn't disrespecting his dignity. Lying to him would be. There's nothing wrong with not answering something, or truthfully telling them that you will not aid them in their immoral actions. One is obliged not to lie, but one is not obliged to obey.
s0niKu Yeah I guess you are right from Kant's perspective. Although In this kind of situation not answering would may result bad. He may even kill you... what would Kant do if the guy out of the door, is too angry and told you that "If you don't give me a answer that satisfies me, I will kill you too, so tell me WHERE is your friend (gives the exact definition of your friend), ..." and nearly cut off the every single possibility of giving a misleading truth... And lets also say you are or who ever is the guy answering the murderer, is not clever enough to give a misleading truth... What would happen? what would Kant say in that position?
Prisoner Of Paradise Well, I can't say what Kant would actually say or do, since who knows what anyone would do in the face of real danger. But following his moral philosophy, you cannot betray your friends location just because you are threatened (imagine a world where everyone caved under threat. Probably not a positive one.), and you cannot lie as this of course treats this human as something less than human. If, hypothetically, you were for whatever reason unable to give a misleading but truthful answer, that does limit your options. So where would that leave us? Well, you could certainly practice self defense. They are threatening murder, after all. There are probably other options too, like stalling so that your friend can escape, or finding some way to alert someone. When it comes down to it, though, if you remove options to narrow the hypothetical to the point where you cannot do anything but tell the truth or lie, the 'correct' answer from a Kantian viewpoint would probably end up being that it is better to die acting morally, defending your friend, than to compromise on your morals by lying. That might seem utterly insane, but at that point the scenario is quite far-fetched too.
Wow this is awesome I'm learning so much. Michael Sandel is an amazing teacher with excellent communication skills and the ability to keep the interaction between students and teacher.
I also agree with Wesley, a deceiving truth cannot fit the moral law. Let‘s test it. If I will that deceiving truths are permitted by law, then everyone consents to it (wills it as universal law) and knows it. Therefore, everyone would know that you‘re deceiving them. Plus, the person you deceive cannot consent to being mislead. So we have a double contradiction: a and non-a: a: I will that everyone is deceived non-a: I will that everyone knows that they are deceived. b and non-b: b: everyone consents to being deceived non-b: nobody consents to being deceived. In both contradictions the very purpose of deceiving is undermined. Bonus: You are using someone as means to your end of helping your friend, you are not respecting the ends of the person you deceive. The end of the person you deceive is to know where your friend is, which he has asked.
It is not often that my thoughts garner any response from the rest of humanity so I thank you for some modicum of recognition...After 40 years of my declining ability in abstract thinking it has become difficult to relate discussions such as this to the "real" world that I inhabit. Concepts such as duty, honor, etc. have become empty or perverted to such an extent that I see little evidence of them around me. Ok, the end/means thing is understood although little of that seems to be practiced.
His works are difficult to read because he is just trying to win an argument by exhaustive logic and methods (from the perspective of himself), not by observation or any empirical means.
Julian could have said that "He had other plans that he had to put a side for the job that they had agreed to between them." So even though he didn't do any work for his friend, he could have done work for someone else and earn something, but now he won't be earning anything, because he had to put off other jobs for that day. so in that sense he would owe him.
Mr. Sandel makes sure by reiterating what the student says, the student knows he has been heard. Most conversations between people involve two separate individuals reiterating their own thoughts and bouncing them off each other. Not really listening to what each is saying. Michael Sandel IS LISTENING and by example showing what real conversation is about.
Brilliant professor and brilliant students who can ask smart questions and give smart answers! That's why we wanna go to a top university bc people around you are all having a clever brain and thinking in a smart way.
1:00 Duty vs Autonomy 4:00 Pure Reason 9:20 Science can't explain the moral truth 13:45 White lie and misleading truth 16:00 Bill Clinton 22:30 Transitioning into Second Session ______ 23:30 Kant's Political Theory 26:00 John Rawls Theory of Justice 27:28 Veil of Ignorance 30:30 Moral force of actual contract 42:22 David Hume Arguing against Locke's idea 50:30 Moral values of actual contract
He means ignorance of your place in life, your class, health, wealth etc. When people keep their own status in mind when deciding on laws and such, they tend to think of things that would be beneficial to their own place in life, therefore by arguing from behind the 'veil of ignorance' you have to consider how fair something would be for everyone, because you could potentially be anyone in that society - if you could be anyone you want everyone to be accounted for.
When your friend might get hurt, your primary motivation should be to help them to avoid it, rather than thinking about your own adherence to some abstract moral law, caring about others is of a higher moral importance. Whatever you're going to say instead of "she/he isn't here" will increase chances for them to be caught, because it won't be straightforward and clear. Kant's ideas are something opposite to Led Zeppelin song "what is and what should never be", it's more like what should be, but is not; that's why I see his ideas more like religion than philosophy, his thoughts don't seem to reflect on the nature of human being. He seems to disregard that whatever law of nature pushes us to do is what we genuinely enjoy doing and it's also what all humans have in common, which isn't true for the moral law-that's the one what we learn and construct, it's not necessarily part of human nature, hence unclarity about the source of it in Kant's ideas. I believe we should still teach Kant's ideas to kids as parents, since moral law can be internalized.
Thanks for uploading this amazing series of lectures. He is such a great teacher invoking thoughts and enabling to understand even many issues not immediately related with the topic.
Philosophy should be taught very early in all schools just as math and english, the basics, I think today its so easy to forget the basics, and maybe it will lead to a better world.
मांग की जारी रही वस्तू के उत्पादन और मांग से श्रम की मांग निर्धारित की जाती है।जब वस्तु की मांग में वृद्धि होती है तब या तो कीमत बढ़ती है या उत्पादन श्रम की मांग में वृद्धि होती है।यह प्रवृत्ति तब तक जारी रहती है जब तक साम्य कीमत और उत्पादन संख्या एक समान नहीं हो जाते।बाजार में वस्तु की मांग द्वारा श्रम निर्धारित होता है।❤❤❤❤❤
Nothing, I mean nothing is better than Philosophy. Thank you Sir! You're the best. (ps I have already done my engineering & MBA from top college of India and my Director was professor at Harvard)
Remember Abraham saying Sarah was his sister when he was faced with death. It turned out she was both his wife and sister but he was economical with the truth to avoid the consequence of being murdered for his wife.
Land transport includes the activities of physical movement of goods and passengers on land. This movement takes place on road, rail and rope. So land transport can be divided into road transport, rail transport, ropeway transport, etc. Roads are the means which connects one place to another on the surface of the land. You must have seen roads in your Villages, towns and cities?) Not all of them are similar. Some of them are made of sand and some may be of cement and coal tar. Today,roads are the dominant mode of transportation in Asia?) Its grand system of national highways, state highways and the roads runs endlessly within cities?)❤❤❤❤❤.
Cartoons and caricatures typically suggested that the monarchy remained absorbed only in sensual pleasures while the common people suffered immense hardships. This literature circulated underground and led to the growth of hostile sentiments against the monarchy.❤❤❤❤❤
Moral laws are the ability to differentiate between right and wrong . If someone asks me where is my wife and or my friend. Before I answer I have to understand why is he asking me. I have to understand the Consequences of my answer and if I was told the truth meaning I know the Consequences for my true answer is going to be murder. There the truth does not Count as truth. Truth assessment is a responsibility under the Laws . Knowing outcome of when to answer Truthfully and when not to answer. That is why the right to keep Silent is applicable by laws. The fifths amendment gives the right not answering Questions that have implications. The answer to your question is the fifths amendment to keep Silent. Need not to Spill the beans if knowing the Consequences.
As far as backing out of contracts before the trade has taken place, this is already worked out in the market. When you contract to buy a house, which takes about a month before the house changes hands, you put up a security deposit in case the buyer backs out. In the case of marriage the engagement ring serves as a security deposit. If the man backs out the women gets to keep the ring. If the woman backs out she must give it back to him.
3:54 define pure reason; rationality that acts under no constraints of self interest (not even its own preservation; if preservation would impair moral good, you should destroy yourself; but by destroying yourself you deprive the world of an agent who operates with freedom, and this would be against the good, and so on); in other words, the choice you would make if you were not human (a thing with more than 1 interest), an abstract entity with no interest beside doing what would be done under no constraints or coercion; necessity is not choice; if you can choose not to choose, to abstain, then you act with freedom
48:31 You were most definitely in the right. However, playing both sides to the middle you did indeed allow him to poke around YOUR PROPERTY. Meaning you did not tell him to 'stop looking' and you knew full well his value for the 'look'. You did not engage in stopping him therefore you are liable for the LOOK INTO YOUR OWN PROPERTY. That is why contracts formal contracts need paper signatures.
The refusal of giving an answer is in fact an answer to some extent. Although words are not told, the fact that you refuse to answer means that this option is more favorable than lie or truth to you, which then can lead the killer to think the reason behind. I think the implication of this non-answer response is actually an answer, but not a clear one. Therefore, in my point of view, your participation in this event starts when you hear the bell rang.
Well, that's kind of interesting. So you're saying that lying and truth telling start as soon as you have an opportunity. By not saying anything you're giving an answer that's inbetween the truth and a lie..
6:30 sounds a lot like a confirmation bias / an appeal to consequences fallacy. "Look at this thing. If we follow the implications of that thing, we get a conclusion that is not flattering to humans. I don't like to think about it therefore it's not true". I'm sorry but I don't believe in autonomy, and I think that people who make blatant fallacies should be called out on it, not celebrated and studied in universities. Also, how does no one see the obvious flaw with the categorical imperative. Clearly, always lying is not good for mankind as an end... But telling the truth all the time including in this situation is _just as much_ not good for humanity as an end. So telling the truth should be against the categorical imperative. What about never talking. Is the ethical thing to do always being mute? Well clearly we we did that all the time, humanity as an end would not be served. Wow. It's almost as if slippery slopes don't make a good basis for reasoning. Who knew. It looks like removing choice from context is not working out. I guess that I tested the maxim "optimise utility for humanity" it would pass the categorical imperative.
Kant leaves it open to interpretation...what is a "moral" duty? what is the standard & which duties/sense of duties can be deemed moral? it completely leaves the question of morality unanswered.
As a "lobster grabber" you could make the argument that during that 2 minute period between signing the contract with you and then you changing your mind, I lost a very rich customer that wanted to buy 2000000 lobsters from me, but I refused him because I had a contract with you, and I had the moral and legal obligation to uphold my contract with you. So you cost me a lot of money by changing your mind - both the money you promised and the other customer's money.
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
@@noofalrabaiai 1. Peterson, Jordan: Biblical series 2. Peterson, Jordan: Maps of Meaning 3. Peterson, Jordan: Personality Course 4. Vervaeke, John - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (COMMENT ON) 5. Sandel, Michael: What's The Right Thing To Do? 6. Sugrue, Michael: - All Philosophy Lectures 7. Sugrue, Michael: Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues - Audible 8. Koterski, Joseph: The Ethics of Aristotle - Audible 9. Bloom, Paul: Yale’s Introduction to Psychology 10. Gendler, Tamar: Yale’s Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature 11. Roderick, Rick: Self Under Siege 12. Roderick, Rick: Philosophy and Human Values 13. Searle, John: Philosophy of Mind et al - Lecture 19 - 16:26] + 2 more lectures (COMMENT ) 14. Gabrieli, John: MIT’s Introduction to Psychology 15. Stokols, Daniel - Irvine’s Environmental Psychology
There are two things you "can" do... create or destroy...ALL of your actions are a reflection of your dignity, intention and desire. Let us move the species forward, not wasting our lifespans....
But when you issue a misleading truth, surely your primary motive is not to honour the moral law, but to mislead, since you know the truth yet intentionally choose to obscure it. Sure, misleading is a step short from lying and you are paying homage to the moral aw, but nevertheless an impurity has seeped in. In this regard, aren't you still, ultimately, going against the spirit/motive that underpins the categorical imperative, which is to first and foremost act in accordance to duty? My moral intuition finds it hard to swallow that by the act of evasion, one can salvage the situation.
I've always found that as a provider of a service, you always need to have your money up front. And as a consumer of a service you always need to have the money post-paid. Who's right? Who should get their way? What's the etiquette, who has the philosophical obligation of payment or other end benefit, to the other party in the contract? The answer I've come up with is that we are all moral agents, but we're not equally moral, and the institution that we are participating in is part of the benefit i.e. some institutions provide a bigger benefit than others. Soft forms of involuntary control like a ubiquitous monetary system are undesirable in this sense, unless you are the provider. In other words, there is nobody looking out for the benefit of the consumer in our system. So we need those soft forms of involuntary control dismantled and replaced with something better... it is my contention that it is possible to organize this without totally abandoning the concept of money, just re-organizing who gets it and when. We ultimately use it when we are paying people who we distrust prima facie. We never use it when we deal with people who we trust prima facie. That's the distinction.
All will is subject to our own passions. Even if you are willing for the "right" reasons. The right reasons are reflections of your pride, conditioning, conformity, education. Look at Kant, his moral behaviors are those that adhere to his own conceived system. That's his pride, a reflection of his self, not some pure reasoned objective realm.
Another point is if I told him where my friend is and the poor for murders him I will be sad and it might just kill us both or leave me guilt ridden as an accessory to murder...a felony.
I agree with Nate. If you don't agree to the benefit and price you have no obligation to pay. I worked with vendors haggling prices and making contracts. No vendor would do work without a signed contract. If they had the account payable department would not have payed. Maybe if the relationship with the vendor was important and the price was fair we would pay, but in no way would we be obligated to.
i have an objection to the statement "there is a distinction between a misleading truth and a lie", and that is although the misleading truth pays homage to the categorical imperative, he uses the categorical imperative as a means to justify his action. You are not doing your duty to respect the dignity of the other person by treating him as someone who doesn't deserve the whole truth. We should be abiding by the categorical imperatives because it requires us to treat other people as an end and not because it opens up a way to a means (which in this case is to save your friend)
I would argue that consent must exist before any obligation exist. This is because say you met this "repair guy" and he did fix your car. He now thinks you owe him money but, in this case, I would be the guy who would disagree. I think that I do not hold any obligation to pay this person because he disregards my right to decline his offer thus he has placed himself of more value than me.
Yeah, someone once said that the only truly moral thing to do in life is to do nothing, obviously I don't agree with that because i'm human and want to experience my existence without fearing hurting myself or others, but it is applicable in this instance of debate.
According to Kant’s ethics, lying is absolutely forbidden. Then they discussed with an example: Suppose a murderer wants to kill your friend and is coming from your friend’s house. Should you tell a lie or a misleading truth? Some say that a misleading truth is more in line with Kant’s ethics because it’s not an outright lie. For example, you could tell the murderer you don’t know where your friend is, which could be true since you don’t know if your friend is in the closet or the bathroom. This statement is true in a sense, as you indeed don’t know their exact location. However, they argue that saying your friend has left or isn’t at home would be a lie and not as acceptable. But if we follow their logic, then nothing would be a lie. For instance, saying your friend has left could be true because I didn’t specify when they left-it could have been yesterday or a month ago. So without context, anything could be true. According to this logic, lies wouldn’t exist
Mill says that Kant must agree with Mill."Otherwise he uses words without a meaning: for, that a rule even of utter selfishness could not possibly be adopted by all rational beings - that there is any insuperable obstacle in the nature of things to its adoption - cannot be even plausibly maintained. To give any meaning to Kant’s principle, the sense put upon it must be, that we ought to shape our conduct by a rule which all rational beings might adopt with benefit to their collective interest"
6:15 those stick things with the ink coming out of them and thin white rectangles are how humans used to remember things before iPhones 5:23 sensible world v. intelligible world
Alright, so after reading Kant, reading about Kant, listening to Harvard's class about Kant, I still don't understand him, and I'm getting a creeping suspiscion that maybe it doesn't make sense and everyone who listens and nods is insane or not paying attention. So please. Some help here, I need this explained to me. The categorical imperative allowed us to extrapolate a maxim that lying was wrong. This maxim is upheld at any cost. Suggestions of solutions to this problem are plenty: half-truth, truth, silence. What bugs me is that the categorical imperative is still valid and that no one attempted to verify if the new maxims that they were formulating were valid by the categorical imperative. What would the world be like if telling half-truth was an universal law? Probably not good. Not in the interest of Humanity as an end. Therefore. Half-truth; not even once. Silence? Well if silence was a universal law there would be no communication. We would be like animals, and certainly Humanity as an end would not benefit. Therefore: "It's ok to be silent" doesn't hold as a maxim. I'll need to flap my gums from dawn to dusk every day of my life. Let's not think about sleeping out of fear that it doesn't pass the categorical imperative. Just... avert your gaze. What about truth? Certainly being truthful passes the categorical imperative. What would the world be like if we just flat out said what we believed all the time? Well, it turns out that we have frontal lobes for a reason. Everyone would be pretty much a psycho-Phineas-Gage with no self restraint and humanity would not be served as an End in itself. So, being truthful doesn't pass as a maxim. Therefore, I should never ever ever tell the truth. So clearly, there's a bug in the categorical imperative, or in the way that I understand it to work, because the results it gives are paradoxal. I can't lie, or tell the truth, or anything in between, and I certainly can't be silent either. I can't pop out of existence though because that would be suicide. The only way it can work is that a maxim not passing the test doesn't imply that the action can never be done, just that it can't be done in the context of the maxim. Maxims would need to be very specific to apply, of course, because nothing is "always good with no measure of dose or timing". And at this point, if you're picking your maxim like "lying when the lie can predictably save human lives", well you are just referring to the consequences. You might as well postulate the maxim "act according to utilitairianism" and it would be valid.
+GregTom2 Further thoughts. The "be truthful" imperative also would not be possible to hold as an imperative in a world where that maxim was held as a universal law because in fact, there would be no reason to lie at all; people would be expecting you to say what you mean. Therefore there could be no autonomous choice for truthfulness. (idk that's a thing people say about categorical imperative when they try to make them sound valid in a complicated way). So yeah, is it possible that you're just aware that liberalism is evil, and afraid to have your organs yanked out, and that you want to believe in right and wrong which is why you all look up to Kant as if his ramblings were intellegible?
It's the effort of fitting to the categorical imperative that makes half-truths moral. Applied to a general law, mankind would surely profit of people trying to stay within Kant's principle. Then again, the argumentation is very abstract.
Firstly, the acts needed for the biological survival of the being, as sleeping, or any other doing that don't require any thinking about means and ends, can't be judged as a moral act. I think that in the sense of the categorical imperative of being truthful, if the reason not to tell someone what you really think is the end of that action, so that the means of doing it is to deceive someone from the truth, the action in itself is not a maxim and the seek to be always truthful is the moral way. At least it is what I understood of Kant..
Pedro H guit Pereira It's so arbitrairy! Talk to me like I'm a computer. Give me precise lines of codes that allow me to test maxims so that I know wether or not I can act on X maxim, and make sure that obviously good maxims like "being truthful is good" pass the test better than bad maxims like "lying is good". Now you're just arbitrairly deciding what is an end or a mean in the situation so that you give bad ends to maxims you don't like and good ends to those you like. " if the reason not to tell someone what you really think is the end of that action" "If the reason for _____ is the end of _____", then the maxim is not valid. How is it that lying always has an end in mind, but being truthful doesn't? Sometimes I tell the truth because I know that I'll get something out of it (e.g. telling my boss about my overtime hours). It means it's a bad maxim and I can't tell the truth here? The wording just seems so... vague and open to interpretation. I still don't get it.
+GregTom2 but being truthful only to achieve good things, to yourself or else, is not a moral act. In the study of moral principles, there's always the question of how much weight can be given to these ideas that judge the moral act. Kant perceives them as moral only if they are made in a sense to have a moral doing, not related to the good consequences or pleasant effects to the individual. So the action will be considered following Kant's rational moral when it comes in a selfless matter, only defined as a properly moral doing after the test of whether they can be good in nature, universally good.
!!! in my opinion, a half-truth is not a moral act, because, although it can be entered into the framework of a categorical imperative, the very fact that we are looking for a loophole is immoral, because, for example, in the case of a friend who is sitting in a closet, the initial motivation is hypothetical imperative, it manifests itself in the fact that we are trying to save a friend, and in the background there is a choice of how to save him, morally or immorally, and although in this case we do not know for sure whether the killer will go further or still enter the apartment , but, speaking, our main and initial goal is to say so that the killer is misled, and this is already a humiliation of his dignity, which is unacceptable if you follow Kant's ideology (I used a google translator, I apologize for possible mistakes)
12:10 'Need to know the specific question the murderer is asking' 'Perhaps I might hide my friend as being my cousin from a far-off state'. For we all are cousins descended from Noah in that regard.... depending on who you are.... even if you're not I decent with Kant who apparently does not understand the value of life.
Question at 14:20 - If I lie or tell a deceiving truth, my motive is the same in both cases. My motive is to not let the murderer know the truth. Can we not say that we acted on an inclination derived from an outside world?
there was no personal profit, no intention for someone else's harm and not a lie to meet the ends but in fact an end in the deceiving truth itself. So yes it is categorically moral. Even with or without the consequences, the deceiving lie is same. Please respond if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.
To elaborate: Kant was saying that the only moral means to any moral end is to do something for humanities sake, for societies sake, rather than for your own personal gain disregarding society. "Disregarding society" is what differentiates what you were complaining about and what is truly immoral; to do something moral for the moral reason is the appropriate approach, even if you happen to get some personal enjoyment out of helping society. In fact that's a plus; society gains from enjoying it.
Mr. Sandel is so great at involving the audience and making them feel good about themselves even when they have weak arguments
Lies again? Right Wrong Red Wine
حجمهةخخهغنت
@@najlaaaljasim1272 h6dfuf
@@najlaaaljasim1272 ww were
*DR SANDEL
I like that he captures the essence of the students arguments and help them to develop what they are pointing out.
20:13
This (not the persn in particular) is one of the most beautiful faces and facial expressions one can witness. The moment of understanding, when something clicks. Learning is truly a something magnificent.
She is hot girl though.
But also a foolish girl, who couldn't understand motivation of misleading truth is only partly pays homage to duty. Even local guy can understand it.
2:05 I love the way Prof. Sandel encouragingly tells the student (Matt), "Okay, that's good, Matt. That is Kant's answer." And Matt breaks into an encouraged smile.
Who is here during COVID-19 and having an existential crisis at home thanks to Michael Sandel
Lol, Professor Sandel is absolutely hilarious in every single one of his lectures.
Still here
and the pandemic as well 😷
@@aymanmajid9736 Still here too.... and the pandemic as well
@@mandymechecc
I give up!
I don't know why I was smiling all the time during the lecture.
The feeling of being illuminated.
The atmosphere in the class is so positive with free floating minds.,
The students in the first half who articulated Kant's points made me proud. If they became lawyers, I'd hire them in a heartbeat.
I could watch these lectures over and over. Thank you Mr. Sandel!!!!
lol you can though
Absolutely brilliant professor. I'll bet this is a favorite among students at the university. This series imparts a wealth of knowledge and aids in understanding social justice/injustice and the grounds for things like affirmative action, diversity, inclusion , etc. Well done sir.
love the way he teaches.
Less writing more talking. I wish regular school was like this. It's more memorable to have a conversation than to simply be told stuff.
I have no words to thank the posibility of listen to this from a small town in Spain.
You do not have to respond in order to evade a lie. Silence is golden.
Constitutional right to not self incriminate!
I had that same response... why not say I'm not going to answer that. If I asked for someone's password they wouldn't lie or tell truth they'd simply say for security purposes I can't answer that.
I am encouraged that I read a whole page of comments on a youtube video, and not one person was accused of being gay or directed to kill themselves. One comment on an attractive woman, but not one vulgar suggestion. Great series as well.
+TheWdayton You're gay. jk
I'm an unattractive guy and I feel offended for not being hit on the same as an attractive woman.
jk
@@Jaime_Protein_Cannister 😂😂😂
This first half of the episode made me think about when some Germans were hiding Jews during the Holocaust. If a German asked you if there were Jews in your house you can't reply with "I don't know", that would of raised suspicion. It's hard to grasp the idea that you should not lie in any scenario but instead use a misleading truth.
The whole political system was built on inhumane ideas and Germany was a very bad place. If I had lived in those days and had been bright enough to understand what was going on I would have hided my friend and of course I would have lied to the police during those days of world war three. Straight.
I’d pay money to see him live, its like a tedtalk but not a tedtalk
University lecture.
That’s why the tuition fee is sky high
Great public speaker
Missing Raul, where is he
I miss gokol too
Raul @ 16:17
And 49:18
I would want to see the present Raul
I think we should, as a humanity, figure out if we have free will at all. And then, if we have, to discuss morality and etc. So the works of all these ancient philosophers are meaningless before that answer.
Regarding the scenario of a murderer asking for the truth, there is an idiom that states, "whatever is built on nullification is nullified." This principle applies here because the act of murder is inherently wrong-morally, ethically, and legally. Since the murderer is already acting outside the law and ethical boundaries, the question of whether lying to him is wrong cannot be applied in the usual sense. In this case, ethics, morals, and the law would treat the lie as a positive action-one that is aimed at saving a human life rather than assisting in a crime. If you were to tell the truth and enable the murderer to carry out his intent, you would become complicit in the act, making you a wrongdoer as well.
My pleasure.
“Freedom is autonomous...Respecting human dignity means regarding persons
not just as means but also as ends in themselves and this is why it’s wrong to use people". Prof. MICHAEL J. SANDEL
I can't describe how cool it is to study at Harvard while you're in Ukraine
Same I am in Australia doing Justice online :)
Me at India .
Me in the Philippines :)
Hey, fellow-Ukrainian, you are not the only one enjoying Harvard Justice. Great to enjoy it in a great company!
From India as well
To the murderer:
"I will not take part in your murderous rampage."
Prisoner Of Paradise Not answering is question isn't disrespecting his dignity. Lying to him would be. There's nothing wrong with not answering something, or truthfully telling them that you will not aid them in their immoral actions. One is obliged not to lie, but one is not obliged to obey.
s0niKu Although that would probably be the death of you.
Ally A. "Death by Kant"
s0niKu Yeah I guess you are right from Kant's perspective. Although In this kind of situation not answering would may result bad. He may even kill you...
what would Kant do if the guy out of the door, is too angry and told you that "If you don't give me a answer that satisfies me, I will kill you too, so tell me WHERE is your friend (gives the exact definition of your friend), ..." and nearly cut off the every single possibility of giving a misleading truth...
And lets also say you are or who ever is the guy answering the murderer, is not clever enough to give a misleading truth... What would happen? what would Kant say in that position?
Prisoner Of Paradise Well, I can't say what Kant would actually say or do, since who knows what anyone would do in the face of real danger. But following his moral philosophy, you cannot betray your friends location just because you are threatened (imagine a world where everyone caved under threat. Probably not a positive one.), and you cannot lie as this of course treats this human as something less than human. If, hypothetically, you were for whatever reason unable to give a misleading but truthful answer, that does limit your options.
So where would that leave us? Well, you could certainly practice self defense. They are threatening murder, after all. There are probably other options too, like stalling so that your friend can escape, or finding some way to alert someone.
When it comes down to it, though, if you remove options to narrow the hypothetical to the point where you cannot do anything but tell the truth or lie, the 'correct' answer from a Kantian viewpoint would probably end up being that it is better to die acting morally, defending your friend, than to compromise on your morals by lying. That might seem utterly insane, but at that point the scenario is quite far-fetched too.
Wow this is awesome I'm learning so much. Michael Sandel is an amazing teacher with excellent communication skills and the ability to keep the interaction between students and teacher.
"May I help you? You and Kant" so good to hear.
YESS!
Agree. I love how he helps the students articulate their thoughts and form better arguments without embarrassing them at all
"Thanks for the tie, I will wear it in special occasions."
Halloween is that occasion
Top Lobster hahahah
HAHHAH good one
So, I just spent 7 hours listening to these lectures. Found the first part an hour before my Philosophy midterm today too xD
honestly, really? people will dislike this video? its a HARVARD LECTURE. if it wasnt what you were looking for, simply leave the page
I also agree with Wesley, a deceiving truth cannot fit the moral law. Let‘s test it. If I will that deceiving truths are permitted by law, then everyone consents to it (wills it as universal law) and knows it. Therefore, everyone would know that you‘re deceiving them. Plus, the person you deceive cannot consent to being mislead. So we have a double contradiction:
a and non-a:
a: I will that everyone is deceived
non-a: I will that everyone knows that they are deceived.
b and non-b:
b: everyone consents to being deceived
non-b: nobody consents to being deceived.
In both contradictions the very purpose of deceiving is undermined.
Bonus: You are using someone as means to your end of helping your friend, you are not respecting the ends of the person you deceive. The end of the person you deceive is to know where your friend is, which he has asked.
It is not often that my thoughts garner any response from the rest of humanity so I thank you for some modicum of recognition...After 40 years of my declining ability in abstract thinking it has become difficult to relate discussions such as this to the "real" world that I inhabit. Concepts such as duty, honor, etc. have become empty or perverted to such an extent that I see little evidence of them around me. Ok, the end/means thing is understood although little of that seems to be practiced.
Oh my god this one was difficult to fully follow... indeed Kant is a difficult thinker
And his books are excruciating to read
His works are difficult to read because he is just trying to win an argument by exhaustive logic and methods (from the perspective of himself), not by observation or any empirical means.
David Hume is my go to guy when it comes to making the most sense
True! He is such a difficult thinker; I didn't think he would be this difficult but his thoughts are also fascinating at the same time.
Julian could have said that "He had other plans that he had to put a side for the job that they had agreed to between them." So even though he didn't do any work for his friend, he could have done work for someone else and earn something, but now he won't be earning anything, because he had to put off other jobs for that day. so in that sense he would owe him.
Mr. Sandel makes sure by reiterating what the student says, the student knows he has been heard. Most conversations between people involve two separate individuals reiterating their own thoughts and bouncing them off each other. Not really listening to what each is saying. Michael Sandel IS LISTENING and by example showing what real conversation is about.
Kant has always been my favorite philosopher
Brilliant professor and brilliant students who can ask smart questions and give smart answers! That's why we wanna go to a top university bc people around you are all having a clever brain and thinking in a smart way.
1:00 Duty vs Autonomy
4:00 Pure Reason
9:20 Science can't explain the moral truth
13:45 White lie and misleading truth
16:00 Bill Clinton
22:30 Transitioning into Second Session
______
23:30 Kant's Political Theory
26:00 John Rawls Theory of Justice
27:28 Veil of Ignorance
30:30 Moral force of actual contract
42:22 David Hume Arguing against Locke's idea
50:30 Moral values of actual contract
He means ignorance of your place in life, your class, health, wealth etc. When people keep their own status in mind when deciding on laws and such, they tend to think of things that would be beneficial to their own place in life, therefore by arguing from behind the 'veil of ignorance' you have to consider how fair something would be for everyone, because you could potentially be anyone in that society - if you could be anyone you want everyone to be accounted for.
" I'd never seen this type of tie before...🤣🤣🤣 Fun and educating.
When your friend might get hurt, your primary motivation should be to help them to avoid it, rather than thinking about your own adherence to some abstract moral law, caring about others is of a higher moral importance. Whatever you're going to say instead of "she/he isn't here" will increase chances for them to be caught, because it won't be straightforward and clear.
Kant's ideas are something opposite to Led Zeppelin song "what is and what should never be", it's more like what should be, but is not; that's why I see his ideas more like religion than philosophy, his thoughts don't seem to reflect on the nature of human being. He seems to disregard that whatever law of nature pushes us to do is what we genuinely enjoy doing and it's also what all humans have in common, which isn't true for the moral law-that's the one what we learn and construct, it's not necessarily part of human nature, hence unclarity about the source of it in Kant's ideas. I believe we should still teach Kant's ideas to kids as parents, since moral law can be internalized.
50:39 Funniest moment in the history of lecturing
51:10 even better!!
Thanks for uploading this amazing series of lectures. He is such a great teacher invoking thoughts and enabling to understand even many issues not immediately related with the topic.
Philosophy should be taught very early in all schools just as math and english, the basics, I think today its so easy to forget the basics, and maybe it will lead to a better world.
This is a typical demonstration of the art of transferring knowledge and the art of rethinking it.
This is the best lecturer I've seen!
it makes me feel like i'm in church listening to Prof Sandel and it also gives me somewhat the same enlightened high I get after church as well.
Whatever.
I hope you meant to say ... listening to Prof Sandel's CHURCH dogma ....
It amazes me that the English subtitles that are auto generated are so accurate.
I think it's bc he's talking so correct and tact
48:28 good transversal point on 'blue'.
Kants misleading information is one of the first things that lawyers need to learn :)
Significant; on the Hyperthetical contracts among equals with the same amount of knowledge, is key. Thank you.
मांग की जारी रही वस्तू के उत्पादन और मांग से श्रम की मांग निर्धारित की जाती है।जब वस्तु की मांग में वृद्धि होती है तब या तो कीमत बढ़ती है या उत्पादन श्रम की मांग में वृद्धि होती है।यह प्रवृत्ति तब तक जारी रहती है जब तक साम्य कीमत और उत्पादन संख्या एक समान नहीं हो जाते।बाजार में वस्तु की मांग द्वारा श्रम निर्धारित होता है।❤❤❤❤❤
गणपति बप्पा मोरया 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Mostly true, historically fact.
Nothing, I mean nothing is better than Philosophy. Thank you Sir!
You're the best.
(ps I have already done my engineering & MBA from top college of India and my Director was professor at Harvard)
His lectures are articulated so well and captivating.
That guy Julian's gotta be a comedian, funniest lecture so far!
Remember Abraham saying Sarah was his sister when he was faced with death. It turned out she was both his wife and sister but he was economical with the truth to avoid the consequence of being murdered for his wife.
Simply brilliant, his amazing communication skills made all the difference.
Land transport includes the activities of physical movement of goods and passengers on land. This movement takes place on road, rail and rope. So land transport can be divided into road transport, rail transport, ropeway transport, etc. Roads are the means which connects one place to another on the surface of the land. You must have seen roads in your Villages, towns and cities?) Not all of them are similar. Some of them are made of sand and some may be of cement and coal tar. Today,roads are the dominant mode of transportation in Asia?) Its grand system of national highways, state highways and the roads runs endlessly within cities?)❤❤❤❤❤.
Cartoons and caricatures typically suggested that the monarchy remained absorbed only in sensual pleasures while the common people suffered immense hardships. This literature circulated underground and led to the growth of hostile sentiments against the monarchy.❤❤❤❤❤
Moral laws are the ability to differentiate between right and wrong . If someone asks me where is my wife and or my friend. Before I answer I have to understand why is he asking me. I have to understand the Consequences of my answer and if I was told the truth meaning I know the Consequences for my true answer is going to be murder. There the truth does not Count as truth. Truth assessment is a responsibility under the Laws . Knowing outcome of when to answer Truthfully and when not to answer. That is why the right to keep Silent is applicable by laws. The fifths amendment gives the right not answering Questions that have implications. The answer to your question is the fifths amendment to keep Silent. Need not to Spill the beans if knowing the Consequences.
This is the most amazing course ever!!!
As far as backing out of contracts before the trade has taken place, this is already worked out in the market. When you contract to buy a house, which takes about a month before the house changes hands, you put up a security deposit in case the buyer backs out. In the case of marriage the engagement ring serves as a security deposit. If the man backs out the women gets to keep the ring. If the woman backs out she must give it back to him.
3:54 define pure reason; rationality that acts under no constraints of self interest (not even its own preservation; if preservation would impair moral good, you should destroy yourself; but by destroying yourself you deprive the world of an agent who operates with freedom, and this would be against the good, and so on); in other words, the choice you would make if you were not human (a thing with more than 1 interest), an abstract entity with no interest beside doing what would be done under no constraints or coercion; necessity is not choice; if you can choose not to choose, to abstain, then you act with freedom
I died at 50:50 😂😂😂😂 Great lecture though... absolutely brilliant!!!!
Excelent lecture, Professor Sandel, thank you very much ⭐️
48:31 You were most definitely in the right. However, playing both sides to the middle you did indeed allow him to poke around YOUR PROPERTY. Meaning you did not tell him to 'stop looking' and you knew full well his value for the 'look'. You did not engage in stopping him therefore you are liable for the LOOK INTO YOUR OWN PROPERTY. That is why contracts formal contracts need paper signatures.
Thanks so much for the tie - the colour goes so well with my blue suit - yes, I had to use that one
The refusal of giving an answer is in fact an answer to some extent. Although words are not told, the fact that you refuse to answer means that this option is more favorable than lie or truth to you, which then can lead the killer to think the reason behind. I think the implication of this non-answer response is actually an answer, but not a clear one. Therefore, in my point of view, your participation in this event starts when you hear the bell rang.
Well, that's kind of interesting. So you're saying that lying and truth telling start as soon as you have an opportunity. By not saying anything you're giving an answer that's inbetween the truth and a lie..
6:30 sounds a lot like a confirmation bias / an appeal to consequences fallacy. "Look at this thing. If we follow the implications of that thing, we get a conclusion that is not flattering to humans. I don't like to think about it therefore it's not true".
I'm sorry but I don't believe in autonomy, and I think that people who make blatant fallacies should be called out on it, not celebrated and studied in universities.
Also, how does no one see the obvious flaw with the categorical imperative. Clearly, always lying is not good for mankind as an end... But telling the truth all the time including in this situation is _just as much_ not good for humanity as an end. So telling the truth should be against the categorical imperative. What about never talking. Is the ethical thing to do always being mute? Well clearly we we did that all the time, humanity as an end would not be served. Wow. It's almost as if slippery slopes don't make a good basis for reasoning. Who knew. It looks like removing choice from context is not working out. I guess that I tested the maxim "optimise utility for humanity" it would pass the categorical imperative.
It's often unprecedent to study and enjoy at the same time...
omg!! I feel so lucky to been able to watch these videos. I so want to study in Harvard.
Kant leaves it open to interpretation...what is a "moral" duty?
what is the standard & which duties/sense of duties can be deemed moral?
it completely leaves the question of morality unanswered.
The subject of freedom is obeying the principle of morality & set you free from the penalty of sin.
As a "lobster grabber" you could make the argument that during that 2 minute period between signing the contract with you and then you changing your mind, I lost a very rich customer that wanted to buy 2000000 lobsters from me, but I refused him because I had a contract with you, and I had the moral and legal obligation to uphold my contract with you.
So you cost me a lot of money by changing your mind - both the money you promised and the other customer's money.
Raptorel why contract ? At the first place, MOU work fur you ?
But that would be an outright lie...
Great course! Even tho i am not law and justice degree student, I am intrigued to learn more
"You shouldn't have!" to not lie about a bad gift is hilarious.
This podcast is a great way to improve my listening.
I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated
You can take this subject online from anywhere in the world - HarvardX
Hi David, I have the same interest as yours. Please let me know if you have and recommendations on that.
@@noofalrabaiai 1. Peterson, Jordan: Biblical series
2. Peterson, Jordan: Maps of Meaning
3. Peterson, Jordan: Personality Course
4. Vervaeke, John - Awakening from the Meaning Crisis (COMMENT ON)
5. Sandel, Michael: What's The Right Thing To Do?
6. Sugrue, Michael: - All Philosophy Lectures
7. Sugrue, Michael: Plato, Socrates, and the Dialogues - Audible
8. Koterski, Joseph: The Ethics of Aristotle - Audible
9. Bloom, Paul: Yale’s Introduction to Psychology
10. Gendler, Tamar: Yale’s Philosophy and the Science of Human Nature
11. Roderick, Rick: Self Under Siege
12. Roderick, Rick: Philosophy and Human Values
13. Searle, John: Philosophy of Mind et al - Lecture 19 - 16:26] + 2 more lectures (COMMENT )
14. Gabrieli, John: MIT’s Introduction to Psychology
15. Stokols, Daniel - Irvine’s Environmental Psychology
@@davidfost5777 Wow! That’s amazing, thanks a lot man! 🙏🏼
@@noofalrabaiai You're welcome
There are two things you "can" do... create or destroy...ALL of your actions are a reflection of your dignity, intention and desire. Let us move the species forward, not wasting our lifespans....
"...you have to be wise, is it lying? diplomatic!"
But when you issue a misleading truth, surely your primary motive is not to honour the moral law, but to mislead, since you know the truth yet intentionally choose to obscure it. Sure, misleading is a step short from lying and you are paying homage to the moral aw, but nevertheless an impurity has seeped in. In this regard, aren't you still, ultimately, going against the spirit/motive that underpins the categorical imperative, which is to first and foremost act in accordance to duty? My moral intuition finds it hard to swallow that by the act of evasion, one can salvage the situation.
Yes , Even I think that lying for a good purpose like saving someone's life is morally correct as the end it leads to is morally correct .
I've always found that as a provider of a service, you always need to have your money up front. And as a consumer of a service you always need to have the money post-paid. Who's right? Who should get their way? What's the etiquette, who has the philosophical obligation of payment or other end benefit, to the other party in the contract? The answer I've come up with is that we are all moral agents, but we're not equally moral, and the institution that we are participating in is part of the benefit i.e. some institutions provide a bigger benefit than others. Soft forms of involuntary control like a ubiquitous monetary system are undesirable in this sense, unless you are the provider. In other words, there is nobody looking out for the benefit of the consumer in our system. So we need those soft forms of involuntary control dismantled and replaced with something better... it is my contention that it is possible to organize this without totally abandoning the concept of money, just re-organizing who gets it and when. We ultimately use it when we are paying people who we distrust prima facie. We never use it when we deal with people who we trust prima facie. That's the distinction.
All will is subject to our own passions. Even if you are willing for the "right" reasons. The right reasons are reflections of your pride, conditioning, conformity, education. Look at Kant, his moral behaviors are those that adhere to his own conceived system. That's his pride, a reflection of his self, not some pure reasoned objective realm.
Another point is if I told him where my friend is and the poor for murders him I will be sad and it might just kill us both or leave me guilt ridden as an accessory to murder...a felony.
I agree with Nate. If you don't agree to the benefit and price you have no obligation to pay. I worked with vendors haggling prices and making contracts. No vendor would do work without a signed contract. If they had the account payable department would not have payed. Maybe if the relationship with the vendor was important and the price was fair we would pay, but in no way would we be obligated to.
The more I listen, the more anthropocentric I find kant's theory.
Beautiful. So glad this is on the web.
i have an objection to the statement "there is a distinction between a misleading truth and a lie", and that is although the misleading truth pays homage to the categorical imperative, he uses the categorical imperative as a means to justify his action. You are not doing your duty to respect the dignity of the other person by treating him as someone who doesn't deserve the whole truth. We should be abiding by the categorical imperatives because it requires us to treat other people as an end and not because it opens up a way to a means (which in this case is to save your friend)
I would argue that consent must exist before any obligation exist. This is because say you met this "repair guy" and he did fix your car. He now thinks you owe him money but, in this case, I would be the guy who would disagree. I think that I do not hold any obligation to pay this person because he disregards my right to decline his offer thus he has placed himself of more value than me.
Yeah, someone once said that the only truly moral thing to do in life is to do nothing, obviously I don't agree with that because i'm human and want to experience my existence without fearing hurting myself or others, but it is applicable in this instance of debate.
Whats is 1985's Molly Ringwald doing there at 5:16 ?
really? I was thinking of girl with pearl earring
According to Kant’s ethics, lying is absolutely forbidden. Then they discussed with an example: Suppose a murderer wants to kill your friend and is coming from your friend’s house. Should you tell a lie or a misleading truth? Some say that a misleading truth is more in line with Kant’s ethics because it’s not an outright lie. For example, you could tell the murderer you don’t know where your friend is, which could be true since you don’t know if your friend is in the closet or the bathroom. This statement is true in a sense, as you indeed don’t know their exact location.
However, they argue that saying your friend has left or isn’t at home would be a lie and not as acceptable. But if we follow their logic, then nothing would be a lie. For instance, saying your friend has left could be true because I didn’t specify when they left-it could have been yesterday or a month ago. So without context, anything could be true. According to this logic, lies wouldn’t exist
Mill says that Kant must agree with Mill."Otherwise he uses words without a meaning: for, that a rule even of utter selfishness could not possibly be adopted by all rational beings - that there is any insuperable obstacle in the nature of things to its adoption - cannot be even plausibly maintained. To give any meaning to Kant’s principle, the sense put upon it must be, that we ought to shape our conduct by a rule which all rational beings might adopt with benefit to their collective interest"
6:15 those stick things with the ink coming out of them and thin white rectangles are how humans used to remember things before iPhones
5:23 sensible world v. intelligible world
Alright, so after reading Kant, reading about Kant, listening to Harvard's class about Kant, I still don't understand him, and I'm getting a creeping suspiscion that maybe it doesn't make sense and everyone who listens and nods is insane or not paying attention. So please. Some help here, I need this explained to me.
The categorical imperative allowed us to extrapolate a maxim that lying was wrong. This maxim is upheld at any cost.
Suggestions of solutions to this problem are plenty: half-truth, truth, silence.
What bugs me is that the categorical imperative is still valid and that no one attempted to verify if the new maxims that they were formulating were valid by the categorical imperative.
What would the world be like if telling half-truth was an universal law? Probably not good. Not in the interest of Humanity as an end. Therefore. Half-truth; not even once.
Silence? Well if silence was a universal law there would be no communication. We would be like animals, and certainly Humanity as an end would not benefit. Therefore: "It's ok to be silent" doesn't hold as a maxim. I'll need to flap my gums from dawn to dusk every day of my life. Let's not think about sleeping out of fear that it doesn't pass the categorical imperative. Just... avert your gaze.
What about truth? Certainly being truthful passes the categorical imperative. What would the world be like if we just flat out said what we believed all the time? Well, it turns out that we have frontal lobes for a reason. Everyone would be pretty much a psycho-Phineas-Gage with no self restraint and humanity would not be served as an End in itself. So, being truthful doesn't pass as a maxim. Therefore, I should never ever ever tell the truth.
So clearly, there's a bug in the categorical imperative, or in the way that I understand it to work, because the results it gives are paradoxal. I can't lie, or tell the truth, or anything in between, and I certainly can't be silent either. I can't pop out of existence though because that would be suicide.
The only way it can work is that a maxim not passing the test doesn't imply that the action can never be done, just that it can't be done in the context of the maxim. Maxims would need to be very specific to apply, of course, because nothing is "always good with no measure of dose or timing". And at this point, if you're picking your maxim like "lying when the lie can predictably save human lives", well you are just referring to the consequences. You might as well postulate the maxim "act according to utilitairianism" and it would be valid.
+GregTom2 Further thoughts. The "be truthful" imperative also would not be possible to hold as an imperative in a world where that maxim was held as a universal law because in fact, there would be no reason to lie at all; people would be expecting you to say what you mean. Therefore there could be no autonomous choice for truthfulness. (idk that's a thing people say about categorical imperative when they try to make them sound valid in a complicated way).
So yeah, is it possible that you're just aware that liberalism is evil, and afraid to have your organs yanked out, and that you want to believe in right and wrong which is why you all look up to Kant as if his ramblings were intellegible?
It's the effort of fitting to the categorical imperative that makes half-truths moral. Applied to a general law, mankind would surely profit of people trying to stay within Kant's principle. Then again, the argumentation is very abstract.
Firstly, the acts needed for the biological survival of the being, as sleeping, or any other doing that don't require any thinking about means and ends, can't be judged as a moral act. I think that in the sense of the categorical imperative of being truthful, if the reason not to tell someone what you really think is the end of that action, so that the means of doing it is to deceive someone from the truth, the action in itself is not a maxim and the seek to be always truthful is the moral way. At least it is what I understood of Kant..
Pedro H guit Pereira It's so arbitrairy!
Talk to me like I'm a computer. Give me precise lines of codes that allow me to test maxims so that I know wether or not I can act on X maxim, and make sure that obviously good maxims like "being truthful is good" pass the test better than bad maxims like "lying is good". Now you're just arbitrairly deciding what is an end or a mean in the situation so that you give bad ends to maxims you don't like and good ends to those you like.
" if the reason not to tell someone what you really think is the end of that action"
"If the reason for _____ is the end of _____", then the maxim is not valid.
How is it that lying always has an end in mind, but being truthful doesn't? Sometimes I tell the truth because I know that I'll get something out of it (e.g. telling my boss about my overtime hours). It means it's a bad maxim and I can't tell the truth here?
The wording just seems so... vague and open to interpretation. I still don't get it.
+GregTom2 but being truthful only to achieve good things, to yourself or else, is not a moral act. In the study of moral principles, there's always the question of how much weight can be given to these ideas that judge the moral act. Kant perceives them as moral only if they are made in a sense to have a moral doing, not related to the good consequences or pleasant effects to the individual. So the action will be considered following Kant's rational moral when it comes in a selfless matter, only defined as a properly moral doing after the test of whether they can be good in nature, universally good.
I intend to watch all the lectures. I have watched 7 already in two days.
Believe me I would finished all of this in a day but I like it one day one episode
Im binging too does anyone know of any other courses like this that are this interactive and engaging. This course is so much fun
!!!
in my opinion, a half-truth is not a moral act, because, although it can be entered into the framework of a categorical imperative, the very fact that we are looking for a loophole is immoral, because, for example, in the case of a friend who is sitting in a closet, the initial motivation is hypothetical imperative, it manifests itself in the fact that we are trying to save a friend, and in the background there is a choice of how to save him, morally or immorally, and although in this case we do not know for sure whether the killer will go further or still enter the apartment , but, speaking, our main and initial goal is to say so that the killer is misled, and this is already a humiliation of his dignity, which is unacceptable if you follow Kant's ideology (I used a google translator, I apologize for possible mistakes)
I ask you to react and explain to me what I am wrong, if I am wrong
Ya why not just say I'm not going to answer the question.
Not the reason because people usually do things they know its wrong
12:10 'Need to know the specific question the murderer is asking' 'Perhaps I might hide my friend as being my cousin from a far-off state'. For we all are cousins descended from Noah in that regard.... depending on who you are.... even if you're not I decent with Kant who apparently does not understand the value of life.
Question at 14:20 - If I lie or tell a deceiving truth, my motive is the same in both cases. My motive is to not let the murderer know the truth. Can we not say that we acted on an inclination derived from an outside world?
there was no personal profit, no intention for someone else's harm and not a lie to meet the ends but in fact an end in the deceiving truth itself. So yes it is categorically moral. Even with or without the consequences, the deceiving lie is same. Please respond if anyone agrees or disagrees with me.
This video is tremendously great, but seriously, who in the world did the subtitles?
No one did. They are automatically generated.
To elaborate: Kant was saying that the only moral means to any moral end is to do something for humanities sake, for societies sake, rather than for your own personal gain disregarding society. "Disregarding society" is what differentiates what you were complaining about and what is truly immoral; to do something moral for the moral reason is the appropriate approach, even if you happen to get some personal enjoyment out of helping society. In fact that's a plus; society gains from enjoying it.
I loved this lecture!
Love the way he teaches... great lecture 😊