Beginner's Guide to Kant's Moral Philosophy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2016
- A simple introduction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and his deontological approach to ethics
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Guest Stars!
Carly Toffle - tinyurl.com/zcngtcl
Cameron Sanderson - tinyurl.com/jytlpu6
Patreon: / philosophytube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Glow shine animation by AAVFX: • 4K 60FPS 2160p Perfect...
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - Розваги
Thank You Chidi !
I literally watched this immediately after finishing the Good Place.
Musclecar123 same
everyone loves moral philosophy professors
@@Musclecar123 same now i know y no one like moral philosophy professors
I lost my shit seeing this because same
There's a lot of nuance here, and this video has been a HUGE help in understanding it all. Good stuff, Olly!
Hey, NedSync! I like your work man! I mean I know it's probably a few people, and at least two on screen, but the main guy. Spent a lot of hours procrastinating to your content :)
you watch philosophy tube scott? respect m8. love the channel.
i have no opinion
+Anh Thu Tran no opinion on what?
NerdSync Thank you. This is an informative presentation, providing an excellent overview of Kant's ideas and logical process in obtaining them. Excuse my departure from the content, but this video is unique in my experience because it is the first and only one that does not have a thumbs down or negative comment by a transient troll. I am proud to be the 80th like!
It’s a breath of fresh air to hear Kant explained so well and so simply - the best I’ve seen on UA-cam! Keep up the everyday contextualised examples!
It all boils down to 3 parts:
1. The only good thing without qualification is the "good will".
2. Morality comes to us because we are rational.
3. Categorical imperative.
True, but it is completely senseless as different people has different marality in the first place. Kant even believed that everybody should be educated to reason like him, so he is totalitarian too .. In other words, Kant believe that moral is practiced equally by 7 billion people (yes, Kant believed that everybody has same sense of marility), which is clearly the most naive thing I have ever heard
Seems in a sense like a form of moral relativity, but one where the relativity is compared within your own rationality. Kant seems optimistic about the human attitude/aptitude towards being moral and rational, but on the premise that everyone practice to become rational.
What are 'good' and 'bad' intentions?
I needed this!!!!!!!!! I'm trying to understand this for my sociology course and the material explains it in the most wordy, unnecessary way. Thank you
My pleasure!
The problem is that most people don't understand Kant, thus can't teach it very well.;
@@maxk880 true
Wanted to say thanks to you mate. Your videos helped me get 95% on my philosophy exam :D
+lollomac99 that's awesome! Congrats!
I honestly love you
I just want to add a different look on morality, which I discovered while reading C.S. Lewis. (His book- Abolition of Men talks primarily about morality, really good book)To find out morality, you actually can't base it on logic, hear me out. If some guy threatens to kill your entire town if no one volunteers to sacrifice himself, what do you do? (No cheating, this is hypothetical). First ask yourself what it the logical and the moral thing to do. The moral thing to do is to sacrifice yourself, because it helps your town out. Yet that is not logical. The logical thing to do is not sacrifice yourself, because you are gonna die anyways, and hope that someone else does so there is a bigger chance of you surviving. thoughts?
+Alex Bensen logical vs moral or gain vs the good thing kinda like its logical not to return the accident change.
?. Could you please expand on your comment?
"I will take the Ring to Mordor! ...Though I do not know the way."
Good will in action, rational since it needed to be done, categorical imperative since it was the right thing to do no matter who did it.
prime example
Well said
This is super helpful! I feel like he has a much deeper understanding of Kant's ethics than a lot of other people I've seen on UA-cam.
I have learned so much from you. You're great at explaining things to people to help them understand the concepts. The only issue I have, that I am an audial and visual learner so adding words or pictures would help me and I'm sure others to learn easier. Thanks for all you do and keep rocking the Philosophy!! Great work! Thanks.
The Categorical Imperative, being the answer to the question:
"If everyone did this, what kind of a world would it be?"
requires relinquishing personal preference for any particular outcome in favor of the general welfare of all, including yourself
Categorical imperative = creating and honoring social contracts?
@@islandgyalr no, because kant is not saying it’s imperative because it’s in your own interest, but because it’s the only thing that logically makes sense.
This sample of knowledge and you get to pick knowledge or money. The imperative being knowledge.
A whole lifesaver! I can never understand the readings or I just get too bored. But videos like this make it understandable and interesting. Good enough for me to do well on the quizzes and test!
I think the rule of "I should act in a way I would want everyone to else to act" is a great simple idea to keep in mind when facing our own moral weakness.
I happen to think so, too. But just for the record, that is NOT what Kant is saying, but that a thing is right when you would reasonably will that everyone do the same.
@@TheThomasmbajjwe I don't see any difference in the two formulations, except the addition of "reasonably"
I've read the Groundwork several times I did you did a really good job of summarizing here in a way that I believe is justifiably sympathetic to one of the great men of all times. Also, you made it accessible to a broad audience which is a feat in itself.
I Kant understand this philosophy??
Sorry I had to.
LMAO
Shall I provide you with i-manual to understand it?
punny punny
i kant understand u
The very best "quick rundown" of Kant's CI I have heard to date. You nail it.
I love this video, it is like listening in on a conversation with my peers at the university. This channel is beautiful. I wish you luck and happiness! And thanks for the video :)
My pleasure!
Guy next door .musica gospe
Thank you! This cleared up a ton of confusions and misconception about Kant I didn't even know I had.
this video came out just in time! i've got an exam on this cheeky kant and his moral theory on wednesday, thank you so much, this helped keep me grounded with all the revision i'm trying to cram in!
I was at a loss trying to understand Kant's moral theory and I don't think that I fully understand it still, but, you have made it so much easier! THANK YOU!!!!
Your videos are saving my life this semester, and also sparking a passion for philosophy that I wasn't even getting through class! ur amazing
Good host/narrator.
+Jason32Bourne thanks! I also wrote it :)
Well done. Cheers!
In a world where my professor talks entirely too fast during lectures, this video was a LIFE SAVER. The concept was explained clearly and thoroughly. Many thanks!
The way you explain concepts is just brilliant mate !
I’ve read kantian ethics and got a completely different interpretation of it. But that’s because I really struggle with philosophy. Having viewed this, everything now makes sense so thanks a lot. This really helped me out.
This is awesome. I remember struggling with Kant's work years ago; imo, you explained his thought on his terms really well.
I'm sooooo happy that I've found this channel!!!
I've been re-reading a lot of Kant and the language is very difficult to parse; not sure if it's due to the translation itself or whether Kant just writes in a very obscure fashion.
After going through numerous pages I came to this video and watched it and finally i was able understand it. Thank you so much for explaining it with good such examples. It was very useful.
I have been watching kants moral theory since this morning but you have explained it in simple way that it is easier for the listener to understand...! Thanks it makes sense now I can move forward to next step ❤
Well nuanced and nuances punctuated clearly and concisely. The 3 versions of the C.I. articulated briefly but thoughtfully. Well worth a listen, thank you for posting, it helped my understanding enormously.
I like the way you said it - the way you expressed your appreciation for this narrator. Concise and clear.
Here from the good place
How to watch season 3
“Ya basic!”
Steven O fork!
He was racist
Me too
Great video. I've seen lots of video that try to explain Kant and bungle it. This is accurate, clear, and sufficiently thorough.
I had such a hard time understanding Kant in my philosophy class but your video really cleared it up for me, thanks!
Could you do a video with Nietzche moral philosophy perspective, since is pretty much the other face of the coin with Kant. Would be interesting a comparation.
Looking at pre-transition Abby is a bit like being able to see the form of a butterfly in the contour of a cocoon
I was kind of lost while reading Groundwork! THIS IS SO HELPFUL!! THANK YOU SO MUCH!
This was exactly what I needed, love your tone and speaking style!
Another awesome video man!! More than happy to have been a part of it :3
bartender!
Transphobic cunt.
@@LordBoston123 Bruh
@@LordBoston123 wtf?
@@LordBoston123 this comment was made 5 years ago, well before PT came out as trans. Either you're trolling or completely dense.
when ur german and an english video teaches u more than lessons
Scheiße!
Oh MEIN GOTT DAS SELBE PASSIERT GERADE ZU MIR AGAHAHAHAHAHA
Hallo!
same, because english people talking about philosophy use normal sensible words while german people talking about philosophy have the need to obsessively talk about a victorian for some reason. "grundlegung zur metaphysik der sitten"? "pflichtbegriff"? "handlungsmaxime"? why does everything have about 4 more syllables than necessary holy shit
This is the best channel ever, you're a lifesaver haha. Your explanations clear up all the misunderstandings and / or spacing out that come from reading the source material 😂
Far, far better than that 'other' Kant video that was suggested to me. Well appreciated.
Oh great! I literally just sat my A Level with the essay on this exactly. A day earlier would have been appreciated...nevermind. Still loved the video, especially with the higher production quality. Good job, Olly!
the lack of daddy energy Olly has in this is frightening
Its very unsettling, like an alternate universe where things are slightly out of place
in his defense, all daddys were once but mere boys
that was the worst things ive ever typed
Thanks Olly, I would say this is your best video so far.
Thanks for this, I have a Communication Ethics class and part of it is Kant and Mill. I had a hard time understanding Kant and this is the 2nd video I've seen that made the concepts more clear!
Nicely done. I wish you'd combined it with the hypothetical imperative so that I could more effectively use it in class.
THAT WAS DEFINETLY CAMERON AS THE BARTENDER!!!!! HOW COME NOBODY SEEING THAT
Clear & credible articulation of a complex philosophy . Thank you
as a philosophy master and selfproclaimed Kantian, i watched this to check if you knew what you were talking about... well done, this is a very good summary of Kants moral philosophy. *lift hats*
Best channel on UA-cam 👌
Very nice though of Kant. I was always against the popular now, "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions" in the figuratively way of course (I'm an atheist anyway). For me it doesn't matter that you failed. All it matters for me is that you tried to do a good thing. I want everyone to have good intentions.
This video really helped me with a paper in college on Kant's categorical imperative. Thanks.
Such a useful channel! I am able to understand a lot of concepts which have always been partially unclear to me. Amazing, really. Going to be a regular viewer.
oi philosophy tube, i'd love a video completely about epicurus, diogenes, or jeremy bentham. basically all the People associated with hedonism, cynicism or stoicism.
The Good Place brought me here...
No, Film theory brought here lol
When people truly understand things they can speak so that the layman can understand. Well done sir!
THANK YOU SO MUCH YOU MADE WRITING MY ETHICS ESSAY SO MUCH EASIER!
oooh I get it now I googled it and read it over about 5 times and didn't get it came to this video and watched it twice I fully understand it now thx man :)
God, it feels so weird to watch Abby's older videos. I'm glad you were able to come out, mate. Best of luck in your future endeavors.
Excellent presentation. I find my daily actions fit some of Kant's ideas. Interesting stuff.
I had my philosophy A2 exam yesterday and the essay was on deontological ethics! wish I had seen this video yesterday :'(
but thank you for all your videos that have helped me a lot over the past two years :)
My exam was one day ago too, but in welding! Where was this video?
a UA-cam video with over 100 thumbs up and no thumbs down!?!?! (as of this comment) apparently the trolls have learned morality
Or perhaps they aren't enticed by philosophical discussion?
And now it's 3363 ups and only 42 downs.
14K to
It makes me happy that I know some basics of this from The Good Place. When a tv comedy can teach moral philosophy, it's done some cool things.
Writing a paper for my Legal Philosophy class, this video was a huge help, keep making more and good luck to you good sir :)
Intelligent young man very nice!
thanks!
So, wouldn't that categorical imperative argue against the existence of a division of labour? Like, if I wanted to be a computer technician, but then I reflected upon the categorical imperative, wouldn't this mean that my will to become a computer technician would be immoral, since, if everyone was a computer technician, I would not want to be one, since nobody would be producing any food, among many other necessities?
I'm sure not everything is moral or immoral. Being a computer technician would not be either, but a thing which is just amoral. A thing devoid of any morality.
As far as I could tell from the video, the categorical imperative referred to action. You could argue that any action in isolation is not definitely moral or immoral to anybody, without considering the broader context it relates to. Lying can be said to be a moral action in certain circumstances (hence the term 'white lie'), or perhaps willfully devoting half my waking hours to repairing computers could be immoral if I lived in a country with 1 computer, better computer technicians already existed, and I had a family that depended on my income from whatever my occupation was.
What I got from the video was that the universal application of the categorical imperative was that it used the universal reflection of 'if everyone did what i wanted to do, would my desire to do it be consistent?'
If Kant is so big into personal autonomy, I feel like you're presenting a case of the will to do for a career what you want to do, where it would therefore be moral because if you were to will that everyone do for a career what they wanted to do that would be just fine, and so the mass of autonomous beings that is humanity naturally creates a division of labor as such.
Maybe I'm way off base here, but I think that's what it would seem to suggest.
I'm not sure what you're saying falls within the purview of ethics and morality. We can apply your example to other cases so as to reveal the problem: e.g. "I want to eat peanuts, but I don't want everybody to eat peanuts because some might dislike them or be allergic to them; therefore, I will not eat peanuts". The example is indeed about an action but not one that has an (essential and direct) ethical effect on others. Your desire to eat peanuts doesn't deny the will of others to not eat them. You could argue from a Marxist perspective, however, that being a computer technician is somehow unethical, but that's another problem (as Olly said).
I think the point Hanna made is valid. But ragarding a lie you have to tread carefully. For Kant there would be no excuse to lie in any circumstance. That actually is a problem and has been a major point against Kants categorial Imperativ. For example if you where a person in Nazi Germany and would hide a jew in your flat and the GESTAPO comes to you and asks you if you hid a jew, acording to Kant you would have to say yes.
You've managed to make kant easy to understand! Thank you so much!!
Thanks man, I think now I'll watch your videos before reading the books. They give lots of background knowledge and understanding
The catigorical Imperative is a great idea with one big flaw,
it depends extremly on the framing of the maxim
As an example with lying it makes a diference if the maxim is
You can lie; You can lie, if it saves lives;or to make it even broader You can Speak
And it can create situations where bothe An action and Not doing that Action are wrong
That's the simplest way I've seen it put in these comments. I'm not certain but I think the answer is Kant didn't allow for conditionals in his maxims. Seems he thought lying was bad even at the cost of lives, though he did define a lie only as an untruth that violates another's right. Seems he wrote some contradictory papers on the subject. In one he claims lying to a robber would not actually be a lie because the robber would expect a lie and would have no right to ask in the first place. Then in a later paper he says truthfulness is a duty to everyone no matter how great the disadvantage to himself or others.
Personally I think the logic of his system works fine if you make the universals a bit less restrictive and apply the rules to each situation individually, but I can see how someone like Kant would consider that to just open the door up to endless excuses as opposed to reasons.
Not to mention that he also tries to draw a distinction between outright lying and telling deliberately misleading truths, which I don’t buy. If it’s the intention that matters then misleading truths in place of lies are also immoral... from there, it’s a short walk to ‘lies by omission’ territory and then it all unravels.
3:07 kant destroying bad people with FACTS AND LOGIC
Great content. Really dense and precise. I watched it several times to get it!
Thank you!!!! This made Kant so much easier to understand.
have an exam in 2 days and the kant reading alone is like 54 pages, is this enough to get by lmao
Some just might say, "We KANT do this...."
Great video and helps me to understand what Kant meant by the categorical imperatives.
This is the only video that helped me understand this. Other people have explained it in such a complicated way, much like Kant speaks. So really it’s no help. But this one was explained well!
The only good actions are ones that you do because you are spooked... but then he says no, you have do it because the ego chooses it... Kant makes no sense at all.
Calm down Max
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
"Everyone hates moral philosophy professor"
I like that we have such great connectivity now with the internet to have good interpretations of all the great philosophers.
I admittedly am unable to read and get what’s important out of the great texts, scholars teachers and other philosophers have done the hard work for the rest of us.
That being said we now can figure out if greats got it right, by combining all the best into context we can formulate a general conclusion.
Kant in long expression is all about the golden rule. Do onto others as they would do on to you.
I wasn’t the only one.
If you keep in mind the Buddhist thoughts you can shorten all the greats into tiny little sentences.
Thank you!!
This was very helpful.... didn't find a better video than this to understand Kant.
>doing videos on fugging spooggs :----DD
>in current year
well memed m'property
t. stirner
+Sam Moore dude what?
Morality is a 'spook' according to Max Stirner, 19th century philosopher and edgelord who wrote the book "The Ego and His Own" in which he proposes that there are ideas which he calls "spooks" such as morality, nationality, race, gender, that people follow and essentially try to conform to against their own self-interest. For example, someone may give a homeless person money because they believe that's what the idea of a good person is, and they are thus subverting themself to this idea, as opposed to doing it for their own self-interest or benefit.
Also, Stirner believed that everything belongs to him he merely needs the power to attain it.
Read more here: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
edit: just remembered a great quote that explains spooks (can't remember where I saw it but I have it in 'spooks.txt'):
"A spook is an abstraction essentially. It's a concept that does not exist as material fact and in many cases is synonymous with the idea of a "social construct." Not all concepts or abstractions are spooks, however. The defining characteristic of a spook is that the concept motivates an individual into acting in a way to protect the "sacredness" of that concept, often against that individual's better interests."
+Sam Moore sounds interesting thx man lol
Has anyone seen these "spooks"? No? Then Stimer is delusional and an idiot.
+Robert Sparks What? He gives several examples of these "spooks". Morality, God, the law, nationalism, natural rights etc. They are, essential, false ethical beliefs (well, max stirner believes all ethical beliefs are "false"), which one has to admit do exist.
I kant understand but okay
This is so helpful! Really made Kant easy to understand
thank you so much for this!! you broke it all down in a way that is very easy to understand!
Woah, spooky.
I have an objection to Kant's statement that good will and only good will is truly good. From what this video says, it seems Kant claims that this is the case because, unlike intelligence, strength, wealth, or whatever else, good will cannot be used for evil. It can only be used for good. On the contrary, most of us are familiar with the saying "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." It is entirely possible to do horrible things out of the desire to do good. Many religious zealots have killed their fellow humans because they believed that they were doing the righteous thing commanded by the supreme moral authority of the universe. People have murdered immigrants thinking that they were bravely defending their homeland from evil invaders. Good will can absolutely be corrupted and turned to evil ends, just as surely as intelligence, charisma, or any other possible "virtue".
"Respecting the rules is good will." But also "If you follow the rules, it's not good will." and also "You make the rules, so whatever you decide is moral is the good will." Got it, makes sense. Thanks!
that quick breadpill in there was excellent
People always say that Kant's moral theory leads to ridiculous conclusions like "You must always tell the truth, even to an murderer looking for your friend". Surely though the maxim doesn't need to be "you should not lie". Can it not have any number of qualifications? Meaning that instead of one maxim there are many.
Would this also extend to stretching the truth? Where you don't necessarily outright lie, but don't tell the whole truth either?
Kant himself argued that you shouldn't lie to the murderer
I think for Kant it would be okay to tell a misleading truth. So you don't have to lie but the murderer won't find your friend either.
+Björn Karg I'm just curious to know why Kant wouldn't allow for such a qualification to be added.
Do you want others in your situation (of being threatened) to lie or not? you certainly do, so they wouldn't get killed.
Would you set an example for others to lie in this case? you certainly would.
I don't see the problem here
You’re literally my favorite person in the planet will u marry me so I can pass moral philosophy and get my law degree
??
@@michaelsaenz380 oh dont worry i already passed all by myself:)
Literally posted the day after my A2 Exam on which one of two main questions was "is kants deontological approach to ethics correct?" Haha! Luckily I covered most of your points! Really good break down btw
thanks for this video. You've made a difficult area of study a whole lot more understandable.
Wouldn't not murdering be a categorical imperative?
By setting up a scenario in which a categorical imperative has been violated, the system crashes.
If all people agree that getting murdered is negative, then by telling telling the truth, you are in fact preventing the victim from attaining their end. Further, by agreeing to offer aid to the victim, you have implicitly indicated that you prefer their end (Not being murdered) to the murderer's end (murdering the victim). Therefore, it can be inferred that by telling the murderer the truth, you have lied to the victim.
Once you introduce a violation of logic into a logical system, logic can no longer be used.
BROOOOOOO.....BE MORE BRITISH.
righto old chap, I'll do my best! Toodle pip!
every comment is an invitation to comment, welcome to the internet
He could make a video on Locke, Hume, Adam Smith, Thomas Hobbes, Bertrand Russel, or any other British philosopher
Really liked this video. laying it out in this way, as well as not focusing on the part were most people (including myself) just see him as obviously wrong (were he says that lying is *always* wrong), really helps in understanding were he was coming from. That bit at the end though made it clear to me that I really really do not understand what free will is supposed to be. I have no idea how it's relevant but that must be because i don't know what it is.
My only real guess is that having free will means having agency. But telling me that if i am put in the exact same situation (with memories and experiences reset) multiple times i will always make the same decision does not make me feel like I'm not "free". In fact telling me that i might make a different decision sometimes makes me feel like i don't have as much agency over my actions as i might hope.
That's the common sense solution that I feel gets looked over far too often. It's a matter of defining the self. The decisions I make may be a result of a series of causes and effects that go all the way back to the big bang and which determine everything I do. But those causes and effects are literally what define me. They're who I am. So I determine everything I do.
This is the best video on Immanuel Kant on all of UA-cam.
The Bible tells us that the Law of God is written in our hearts. That is why we always strive to do good. Our conscious condemns us when we violate the Law of God in our hearts (souls). But when we indulge ourselves in sin, that hardens our hearts, and therefore violates our conscious. We end up sinning habitually, and since we do have a fallen nature, we fail to see the imminent danger, which is the consequence of our sin.
Similar to Kant, Jesus came to teach that men need to be righteous beings, it wouldn't matter how righteous you act, if you are not righteous within, you only act that way for what that righteous act get you, then you are an evil person. That was the reason why he rebuked pharisees and scribes (the most religious people of his time), he called them vipers, that they were like their father the Devil! That is like going to the priest and pastors of today and say those things to them!
But the issue with Kant is, it doesn't tell or clarify how do we get the will to do good? It just say it is inside us. Do we all have a good will or some of us don't have a good will. If some lacks a good will, then why?
Because a lack of knowledge. When Kant says it is inside of us what he means is that we inherently know what good and bad is but we do not know why(the knowledge part) that is when you can add in deontology and natural law and virtue ethics
nayinayi1 please dont try to compare a story to a theory. Kants philosophy is nowadays used to debunk god and he himself was'nt religious as he grew older.
I am a Christian, but it is fair to note that there are some major differences between the Divine Command Theory, and Kant’s Deontological ethics. Kant says we have a duty to uphold morality, thus using the categorical imperative, the principle of the ends, and the principle of autonomy. The Divine Command Theory just says that God’s will is morality, and we have to uphold the Ten Commandments and the rest of His Word. Although Kant was very religious, he criticized the DCT, and called it a “crutch” for people making ethical decisions. He basically said that if we’re doing the right thing because God or the Bible tells us to, then we are doing it for the wrong reason. Kant believes we should act morally ONLY because we have a duty to do so.
You know jesus and god aren't real right.... maybe pick up a science book...
No. There is no god. Your entire belief system is a lie. Grow up.
YOU SAVED MY ASS ON MY FINAL ESSAY . THANKS A TON
I love watching Olly's 4 year old videos to help me with my philosophy homework 😚
i just started philosophy2A at the University of juburg, and i was really having a difficult time comprehending these laws...am now at ease. thanks mate