I had to comment, as I have only just only come across this and it has given me more understanding of Kant than 5 years of philosophy ever has, in two brief videos. I cannot thank you enough for this clear, concise video with excellent examples. It has helped me enormously in my understanding of Kant and being able to evaluate his theory in different circumstances (I'm doing an essay on the ethics of 'Three Parent Babies' if you have heard of it (a type of genetic modification)) - before my arguments were hazed by misunderstanding, but this has helped me endless amounts with being able to apply and evaluate by using the theory to evaluate my essay topic!
Xanthe Gabrielle-Beacher I know, hey, this guy is amazing! After trying to learn Kant through so many different sources, one starts to think, Kant is just not for me, or, Kant has nothing to say to us today, but I came across this video and he just explains it so clearly and lays it all out for us, so amazing.
Something you've probably not considered is the risk to the woman for extracting the eggs necessary for the procedure - and perhaps it should use natural IFV vs drug induced IVF.
Xanthe that’s the University for you. It’s a massive racket, and scam. I’m all for learning, but college, who receives money from the powers that be, is one of the worst places to learn. Sad but true.
This has been a lifesaver. I'm learning Kant for my Social and Ethical Issues in Homeland Security class and Penn State and this has really helped me understand the information. Thank you! :)
wow, I am only a few minutes into this video, and great job!! wow, so clear, so helpful, so glad I found this, thank you for your work and help in elucidating the work and genius of Kant!
This was _really_ well done. The truth is, morality cannot be consequentialist. All who think that way, I find tend to take many things for granted not seeing the logical entailments of their own deep-seated beliefs concerning morality. Also, a categorical deontological understanding of morality can deal with consequences so long as the deontological operation is at the foundation. Very good job teachphilosophy. Your assessment of number 4, however, "you should not lie because God says so," is *not shown* to be distinct from the categorical moral concern. You just *profess* that it is. Furthermore, when you go on to say "you don't need to believe in God to be moral according to Kant" as your explanation of proposition 4, aren't you setting up something of a Straw Man? I mean proposition 4 *inherently has nothing to do with BELIEF in God.* So, your only relevant dealing of proposition 4 comes in where you go on to say, "he does in a sort of deep sense believe that morality supports a belief in God." So *based* on what you wrote and this last thing I quoted you saying about morality supporting a belief in God, for all we know, proposition 4 is reducible and actually identical to proposition 3 via logical equivalence.
It is incorrect to state that one has "kantianism" within them simply because Kant's ideals line up with a decision they may or may not make based on an internal good within them. Kant was a human so it is better to say that it a natural disposition found within most if not all people.
Three choices every conscious entity has: 1) Sacrifice self for others; 2) Sacrifice others for self; 3) Basically neutral, no sacrificing at all. With all the consequences and ramifications of our choices. Exactly what kind of world do we choose to exist in while we consciously exist? But then we still all die one day from something, then what? We still have eternity to go.
Thank you very much. I finally understand these "acting from duty". Ive watched sifferent professors yet im still confused but now I get it! Kinda hahah 😂
'the only thing good without qualification is a GOOD will' .... read: the only thing good without qualification is a qualified (good) will. how circular, kant!!!
11:20 Number 4 is actually directly tied with 3. If God says so, then it iS Right or IS wrong. So 4 leads to 3 which leads to being Morally right. This video is very helpful..
+Dylan Begazo In statement 3, Kant simply said act of lying is wrong. God did not make it so. However, if you believe in God and assume that he comes before all this moral stuff, then I'd say you are probably right. However, you would be biased in your assessment.
Isn't it pronounced "Kahnt" rather than the American pronunciation of the word "can't"? That would be the German pronunciation, and he was German. It is hard for me to listen to this even though the info is not bad simply because the pronunciation.
Kant is just a man and the reality is: the fact that man inherently knows that certain actions are wrong doesn't mean "Kant is in them." It means that divinity (the inborn power of light and goodness from the Most High) is in them. Besides, if one were to believe that divinity doesn't help guide the reasoning of man to determine what they believe is wrong, then on what basis is boiling a baby actually bad? Depending on the person, boiling the baby can be a good thing. And even if there is no valid reason or circumstance to permit the action of boiling the baby, then who is to say that the individual boiling the baby is wrong if that said, condemned individual is simply doing it because it feels good to them and brings them extreme gratification? Are they really wrong?
So we as a intellectual animal, have been born dualistic. I think we have to look beyond good vs evil. Killing or violating vs love and safety only preserves or lessens physicality...to me, its something the mind needs to grow out of...physicality is the illusion they say..i think we need to grow out of that reasoning
+teachphilosophy Thank you for pointing this out. I'd like to delve deeper into this but that simple answer, i presume, is deep enough as a statement, yes?
You cannot simply state that something is wrong just because it is wrong and make it "Categorial Imperative". Every action's consequences must be reasoned and explained as explicit as it possible. Every action's morality/immorality must be objectively discovered by using your reasoning faculty. Kant's moral doesn't have an appropriate rational basis. There is only "you must because you must", which makes his ethics the weakest part of his philosophy.
Yes, I agree instrumental reason/science cannot ground morality. But the alternative to taking some acts as intrinsically wrong is to say nothing is wrong because morality is relative to the individual or culture. If you don't accept some foundations of morality, it won't get off the ground anymore than chess can begin until you accept some fundamental rules. The foundations of morality include 1) don't cause unnecessary suffering and 2) treat people with respect and 3) be fair. Someone who wants to cause unnecessary suffering doesn't have a different morality, they have no morality at all. The reason I believe these 3 are foundational is an Aristotelean One: look at people when they argue about moral issues. They are always seeking fairness, the reduction of unnecessary suffering, respect... and disagree on what best does that. At the foundation of every discipline, there are self-evident claims that cannot be proven. They are not vicious circles but they are presupposed. I believe that is the best one can do in morality. Again, it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and if one disagrees then that person is not in the moral sphere.
I had to comment, as I have only just only come across this and it has given me more understanding of Kant than 5 years of philosophy ever has, in two brief videos. I cannot thank you enough for this clear, concise video with excellent examples. It has helped me enormously in my understanding of Kant and being able to evaluate his theory in different circumstances (I'm doing an essay on the ethics of 'Three Parent Babies' if you have heard of it (a type of genetic modification)) - before my arguments were hazed by misunderstanding, but this has helped me endless amounts with being able to apply and evaluate by using the theory to evaluate my essay topic!
Xanthe Gabrielle-Beacher I know, hey, this guy is amazing! After trying to learn Kant through so many different sources, one starts to think, Kant is just not for me, or, Kant has nothing to say to us today, but I came across this video and he just explains it so clearly and lays it all out for us, so amazing.
Something you've probably not considered is the risk to the woman for extracting the eggs necessary for the procedure - and perhaps it should use natural IFV vs drug induced IVF.
Xanthe that’s the University for you. It’s a massive racket, and scam. I’m all for learning, but college, who receives money from the powers that be, is one of the worst places to learn. Sad but true.
I love this guys voice
11 years ago but just in time for me to lead a presentation on Kant, thank you!!
This has been a lifesaver. I'm learning Kant for my Social and Ethical Issues in Homeland Security class and Penn State and this has really helped me understand the information. Thank you! :)
I could use this guy to help me write my theoretical part of my Thesis. FYI so adorable when he laughs at his own jokes!
Thank you! You made it so easy to understand and filled in the places where countlesss textbooks and my professor couldn't even help! :)
An ax wielding psychopath knocked at my door last night and asked where my children are. Of course I told him exactly where they were
Thank you for this video! Finally understood Kant's moral philosophy, was super confused until now. (y)
Thank you for making and sharing this!! His 'Critique of Pure Reason' was an infuriating read.
So the road to hell is paved with good intentions isn't Kantian.
I love the Calvin and Hobbes comic at the end! Bill Watterson is so clever.
concise and simple, thank you :'D
wow, I am only a few minutes into this video, and great job!! wow, so clear, so helpful, so glad I found this, thank you for your work and help in elucidating the work and genius of Kant!
Great video! I just learned a whole lot in 14 min, now time for my 700 word essay!😄👍🏽
Bentham said rights are nonsense on stilts.
Very good and clear presentation. Thank you
This was _really_ well done. The truth is, morality cannot be consequentialist. All who think that way, I find tend to take many things for granted not seeing the logical entailments of their own deep-seated beliefs concerning morality. Also, a categorical deontological understanding of morality can deal with consequences so long as the deontological operation is at the foundation. Very good job teachphilosophy.
Your assessment of number 4, however, "you should not lie because God says so," is *not shown* to be distinct from the categorical moral concern. You just *profess* that it is. Furthermore, when you go on to say "you don't need to believe in God to be moral according to Kant" as your explanation of proposition 4, aren't you setting up something of a Straw Man? I mean proposition 4 *inherently has nothing to do with BELIEF in God.* So, your only relevant dealing of proposition 4 comes in where you go on to say, "he does in a sort of deep sense believe that morality supports a belief in God." So *based* on what you wrote and this last thing I quoted you saying about morality supporting a belief in God, for all we know, proposition 4 is reducible and actually identical to proposition 3 via logical equivalence.
It is incorrect to state that one has "kantianism" within them simply because Kant's ideals line up with a decision they may or may not make based on an internal good within them. Kant was a human so it is better to say that it a natural disposition found within most if not all people.
Three choices every conscious entity has: 1) Sacrifice self for others; 2) Sacrifice others for self; 3) Basically neutral, no sacrificing at all. With all the consequences and ramifications of our choices. Exactly what kind of world do we choose to exist in while we consciously exist? But then we still all die one day from something, then what? We still have eternity to go.
TYSM! This helped me so much!
Thanks so much for this! So helpful for my RS A Level revision :)
This was great and it was very helpful for my assignment :)
Was Kant ever exposed to the English saying "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Good Intentions"?
You are so good! Thank you so much.
Thank you very much. I finally understand these "acting from duty". Ive watched sifferent professors yet im still confused but now I get it! Kinda hahah 😂
saying period even before it became a trend😂😭 anyways this was very helpful🤝
'the only thing good without qualification is a GOOD will'
.... read: the only thing good without qualification is a qualified (good) will. how circular, kant!!!
11:20 Number 4 is actually directly tied with 3. If God says so, then it iS Right or IS wrong. So 4 leads to 3 which leads to being Morally right. This video is very helpful..
+Dylan Begazo In statement 3, Kant simply said act of lying is wrong. God did not make it so. However, if you believe in God and assume that he comes before all this moral stuff, then I'd say you are probably right. However, you would be biased in your assessment.
Thanks for your great comment. You didn't lay down a single insult and you are absolutely right :)
wonderful video. subscribed
Rights arent nonsense but should be overridden
Amazing video
Thanks and glad to hear it. :) Anna Skog Olsen
Isn't it pronounced "Kahnt" rather than the American pronunciation of the word "can't"? That would be the German pronunciation, and he was German. It is hard for me to listen to this even though the info is not bad simply because the pronunciation.
You are correct. I equivocate between the two pronounciations because it is harder for me to pronounce it that way. :)
teachphilosophy second imperative. and i quote "Kant we all just get along?"
Kant is just a man and the reality is: the fact that man inherently knows that certain actions are wrong doesn't mean "Kant is in them." It means that divinity (the inborn power of light and goodness from the Most High) is in them.
Besides, if one were to believe that divinity doesn't help guide the reasoning of man to determine what they believe is wrong, then on what basis is boiling a baby actually bad? Depending on the person, boiling the baby can be a good thing.
And even if there is no valid reason or circumstance to permit the action of boiling the baby, then who is to say that the individual boiling the baby is wrong if that said, condemned individual is simply doing it because it feels good to them and brings them extreme gratification? Are they really wrong?
So we as a intellectual animal, have been born dualistic. I think we have to look beyond good vs evil. Killing or violating vs love and safety only preserves or lessens physicality...to me, its something the mind needs to grow out of...physicality is the illusion they say..i think we need to grow out of that reasoning
The lecturer here is Sam Harris, which should be annotated somewhere.
Galen DuLac No, I am not Sam Harris and it's not his lecture. :)
+teachphilosophy Hahaha, this is so funny to me.
How would Kant's moral hold up to the modern belief that free will is an illusion?
+Baraliuh He would argue against the belief that free will is an illusion.... For Kant, there is no moral responsibility without free will.
+teachphilosophy Thank you for pointing this out. I'd like to delve deeper into this but that simple answer, i presume, is deep enough as a statement, yes?
You cannot simply state that something is wrong just because it is wrong and make it "Categorial Imperative". Every action's consequences must be reasoned and explained as explicit as it possible. Every action's morality/immorality must be objectively discovered by using your reasoning faculty. Kant's moral doesn't have an appropriate rational basis. There is only "you must because you must", which makes his ethics the weakest part of his philosophy.
Yes, I agree instrumental reason/science cannot ground morality. But the alternative to taking some acts as intrinsically wrong is to say nothing is wrong because morality is relative to the individual or culture. If you don't accept some foundations of morality, it won't get off the ground anymore than chess can begin until you accept some fundamental rules. The foundations of morality include 1) don't cause unnecessary suffering and 2) treat people with respect and 3) be fair. Someone who wants to cause unnecessary suffering doesn't have a different morality, they have no morality at all. The reason I believe these 3 are foundational is an Aristotelean One: look at people when they argue about moral issues. They are always seeking fairness, the reduction of unnecessary suffering, respect... and disagree on what best does that. At the foundation of every discipline, there are self-evident claims that cannot be proven. They are not vicious circles but they are presupposed. I believe that is the best one can do in morality. Again, it is wrong to cause unnecessary suffering and if one disagrees then that person is not in the moral sphere.
Nice
Make more plz!
That intro lol
Would Kant be likely to agree with unions or argue against them?
+keith stanley In my opinion, he would support them for the most part: never use people merely as means.
Unions for what? of what?
how could we reference the example you say Kant uses of the two soldiers? Is this in Groundwork on the Metaphysics of Morals?
+Alana Sparrow Yes, it is there towards the beginning.
its pronounced KAAnt lol :)
felicitări (isabelavs.go.ro/Articole/CAP12_3.html)