Kant's Deontological Ethics
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 ก.ค. 2024
- In this video, we dive into the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher known for his formulation of deontological ethics. Unlike teleological ethical theories that focus on the ends or goals of our actions, Kant’s deontology centres on duty as the fundamental moral concept.
Kant argues that to act morally, we must act for the sake of duty, regardless of personal desires or feelings. This emphasis on duty is grounded in reason, making moral requirements universal and objective for all rational agents. We explore the concept of acting from a good will, which Kant sees as the only intrinsically good thing, giving our actions moral worth.
Moral duties, according to Kant, take the form of categorical imperatives, which are unconditional demands. They contrast with hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional demands based on personal desires. The Categorical Imperative is the supreme principle of morality and can be expressed in different ways.
We introduce two key formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The Law of Nature Formula acts as a test to determine if a maxim can be universalized without contradiction. We explain contradictions in conception and contradictions in the will through examples like false-promising and helping those in need. The second formulation, the Formula of the End in Itself, emphasises treating humanity as an end in itself rather than as a mere means to an end.
Perfect for University Courses & A-Level Philosophy & Ethics OCR & AQA or equivalent.
Join us as we break down these complex ideas and prepare to explore more of Kant’s ethical theory in our next videos.
🔍 Key Points Covered:
- The difference between deontological and teleological ethics
- The role of duty in Kant’s moral philosophy
- The significance of acting from a good will
- Understanding categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives
- Introduction to the Law of Nature Formula and the Formula of the End in Itself
📖 Chapters:
00:00 Deontology vs Teleology
00:24 Duty
00:40 Good Will
01:36 Hypothetical vs Categorical Imperatives
02:26 The Categorical Imperative: The Supreme Principle of Morality
02:40 Formula of the Universal Law of Nature
03:45 Contradiction in Conception
04:48 Contradiction in the Will
05:32 Formula of the End in Itself (also called Formula of Humanity)
06:40 Watch My Other Videos for More :)
🔔 Subscribe for more insights into ethical theories and philosophy!
👍 Like this video if you found it helpful!
🗨️ Comment your thoughts or questions below!
📺 Watch Next:
Part 1 (Kant Series): • Kant Destroys Utilitar...
#Philosophy #Ethics #Kant #Deontology #CategoricalImperative
I like to review these topics from time to time. You were really clear, i liked the video!
Nice one. Glad you liked it
Good video I'm using some of your examples in a Star Wars episode of my podcast about Baylan Skoll from the Ahsoka show
the thing I get confused about this is always how much nuance should apply.
Like, say I want to cut in line to spend less time in line. If everyone did that no one would spend less time in line, so a contradiction in the will I guess.
But say I'm kinda late and under this circumstance I decide to cut in. If everyone decides to cut in when they're late, since not everyone is late, everyone who is late would actually save time. So is that okay in this case?
It seems to me that if we allow no nuance the whole idea is simply impossible to reasonably apply in most non-trivial scenarios, but if you allow enough nuance then in the limit your maxim even when universalized would actually only apply to the specific situation and reduce to "would I like to do this now?".
So, like, it feels like the whole exercise can only be reasonably well defined in light of some criteria to decide how the maxim is cut off to begin with, which kinda seems to defeat the idea of this as some ultimate test, as it relies on some other sort of test essentially, to actually be applied.
Anyway, I guess I've never really seem this be applied to anything more than toy problems or with a heavy grain of vagueness - like in "refusing people who need help *when we could easily help them*", that "easily" is doing a whole lot of work.
That being said, nice video - it helped me put this nagging feeling into words, so thanks for that : )
Thanks for your comment, and a great contribution!
Defenders of Kantian ethics may try to argue a couple points in response to the interesting problems you raise.
Firstly, they could go down the avenue of arguing that since maxims have to be universalisable, they cannot be too nuanced or specific. To be universalisable they need to be general.
Secondly, they could bring more attention to the formula of the end in itself. Kant might think that cutting into a line isn't treating others as an end in themselves, and that the ideal solution is that others queuing offer the place in front of themselves to those that are in greater need. This may be the best may to honour the spirit of the Categorical Imperative.
I appreciate that this doesn't fully address your concerns, but it's a possible area to explore in responding to those issues.
Thanks again :)
I like the way you explained
@@untanglephilosophyThanks for the reply, it had slipped me by.
I think part of the problem may be that I was expecting the categorical imperative to *have* to be able to be deterministically applied to every specific situation - sort of like "solving all ethics". But if it is more of "something which always applies but might not always be solvable", or "there are things we can categorically say from these, but we can't necessarily have a categorical say on all things just from this", or "these imperatives can't decide everything but no decision should contradict these imperatives", than that seems a lot more tenable to me. Would you say that's the case?
Also, It occurred to me that the idea of the formulations being equivalent is pretty interesting in itself, but I haven't given it much thought yet.
But yeah, thanks for the reply, it does point to directions to look further into : )
nice!
Thanks!