Dr. Sahar, I wish I found you sooner! This video has been a great help to me and my studies. You explained the topic so well and so easily, that I completely understood you in the few minutes of this video compared to the hour-long lectures from my professors in college. Thank you so much!
Can Kantian ethics be of an emotivist position metaethically? I think yes, here's why suppose: 1-smith tortured vehemently a child. 2- socrates was looking at that child (the child being tortured) and then socrates said to smith (you shouldn't do that,that's morally wrong). 3-socrates takes his moral statement as a universal maxim. 4-it's possible that socrates said that ( the moral statement ) and he believed that moral statement, because the absence of a state of affairs in which a child is vehemently tortured is liked intrinsically in the intellect of socrates. 5-if 1 and 2 and 3 and 4,then kantian ethics can of an emotivist position metaethically. So it seems that when we say that x is morally wrong that means nothing but we dislike x. Now the disliking might be intrinsic to all individuals (persons).
This is instructive and entertaining. Love your teaching style. One question - does Kant’s philosophy address situations like lying to save someone. E.g. you want to save a person’s life by lying about it’s hiding location (imagine being asked that by a nazi in ww2). One may want for the universal law to be “do not lie” but when taken to its logical conclusion such law would be detrimental to the hiding person’s life. English is not my primary language so hopefully you will understand what I mean.
Thanks for the great question! Look up a short essay by Immanuel Kant called “on the supposed right to lie from benevolent motives” and you will learn what Kant thinks about lying to save a life (just like the example you are inquiring about!)
An "imperative" in Kant's terminology is a "command involving the moral ought". so "you ought to eat ur vegetables" is an imperative bc it has the moral ought.
hmm I don't know why someone has a MORAL obligation to eat vegetables. But, yes, you have the right idea about what an imperative is. Maybe misapplying it, however.
@@saharjoakim "Ought" has a prescriptive and predictive sense. When I use the word "moral" i mean it in the general study of ethics (so a moral ought i mean as an ethical statement as opposed to predictive statements like in science, e.g. chemical laws predicting how a reaction should go). I do understand that Kant limits the term "moral" to mean only "obligatory" principles so I can see where the confusion is. "You ought to eat your vegetables to get vitamins" is an imperative in general bc it contains a prescriptive ought (something like "Eating vegetables, ought to provide vitamins" is not an ethical sense of the word "ought"). Here is the text from the Grounding where Kant defines an "imperative": "The representation of an objective principle insofar as it necessitates the will is called a command (of reason) , and the formula of the command is called an imperative" (Trans. Ellington 413). I only mean to correct ur designation of "imperative" as "importance"...as that's not how Kant really uses it. Its only relevant if someone is studying for a philosophy test (as this was on my philosophy final exam). Its other importance is that ethics for kant is limited to practical reason (the will for kant). ethical statements like "Justice is an eye for an eye" would not be relevant for Kantian ethics bc its not technically a imperative used by practical reason...that is a statement of speculative reason that Kant strictly rejects being useful for ethics.
The categorical and hypothetical imperative are tools you may use to realize what you should do. The hypothetical imperative is a tool that you use to realize what you should do when you have some goal, and the categorical imperative is a tool that you use to realize what you should do regardless of your goals.
Thanku so much ma'am. Very nicely explained. But I have a question. In case of categorical imperative, if in a particular situation I am lying because through that I can save somebody from being killed by someone. Then shouldn't I lie to save someone?? What would be Kant's reply to this ma'am??
If you lie, even to try to save a life, you will live with the consequences of failing to treat the person to whom you are lying as an end in themselves.. could you will that doing so was universal law? Look up a short essay by Immanuel Kant called “on the supposed right to lie from benevolent motives” and you will learn what Kant thinks about lying to save a life
hmm.. the C.I. is imposed on all reasoners from the fact that each is a reasoner.. Your reason may be "internal" so I see the draw to describe things in the way you are-- but maybe someone would argue that it too is imposed on you from the external (since, reason itself is external from YOUR mind)
It feels like thinking happens automatically. Telling yourself not to think doesn’t work. Our background processes in the brain our always at work consciously, unconsciously and subconsciously maybe?
'Good' and 'bad' are social constructs. The natural world doesn't have these arbitrary definitions, they wholly exist in the world of humans, and it is religion that gives us the terms and defines them for us. So, wrestling with these terms and their application comes from within. We can look to god for help, but essentially, on the grounds that it's a social construct, it comes from within.
I'm confused a lot by the Categorical Imperative's practical application. For example, what about the many cases where what we subjectively will to be universal law is so far different from someone else leading to a major conflict of interests for society? As an example, antinatalists believe it is in humanity's best interest to go extinct by refraining from procreation while natalists believe it is in humanity's best interest to continue existing through reproduction. How might a Kantian resolve such differences of opinion in terms of what best serves humanity?
You are right that a difference in opinion between people implies two people will different ideas as universal law- those differing ideas might be incompatible. According to Kant, people's opinions are not necessarily right/true/good/correct. Truth is not subjective. Anyone can be wrong about reality. So, Kant can reply: natalist are wrong in their opinion and therefore their will is misguided (Or maybe anti-natalist are wrong and their will is therefore misguided). Both natalists and antinatalists can't be correct, one position must be false (actually, both camps might be incorrect assuming there is a third option). ...People's opinions about what best serves humanity might differ, and they do, Kant is after the objective truth rather than what we believe is true (the subjective).
@@saharjoakim Yet just suggesting that one must be right and other wrong or both wrong seems so impractical to me. How can anyone be expected to know this higher but evasive moral truth assuming it exists? And if we become omniscient beings all-knowing, is that supposed to resolve conflicts of interests? I would think it would create more conflicts now that we have an infinitely larger database upon which to form our varied interests. Thank you for your time by the way!
@@darkengine5931 Notice that you generated an alternative possibility. Option One: natalist are correct. Option Two: anti-natalist are correct. Option Three: whether humans should go extinct is not within the realm of what humans can know. //...Yes, in theory, if every human was omniscient then there would be no conflict (we all know the single truth, so there can be no disagreement about what to do, what to believe, etc.) Conflict is generally a disagreement between two or more parties about what is good/true/correct/etc. Thanks for the great questions, you are a thinker!
@@saharjoakim I'm actually of the thought that omniscience would cause our moral thoughts to diverge further, not converge, in spite of answering all possible scientific questions. For example, suppose a select few of us became omniscient able to foresee every possible consequence of every possible action, and let's suppose that we can still arrive at a utilitarian consensus on what sort of net utility metric we use to measure all possible future universe states. There might still be an infinite variety of universes whose net utility, when measured over infinite time, are equal. For example, I might favor a Star Trek universe with humans exploring space. Another person might favor a universe of equal utility of human beings returning to a more primitive state of being more in harmony with nature. If the metric factored in utility for all living creatures and not merely human beings, that might yield a smaller subset of universes of equal utility, but perhaps still an infinite variety. It seems to me that, at this point, all we can do to select among these possible universes of equal utility is express our most personal of interests.
@@saharjoakim On the contrary, I think it's our shared ignorance that allows us to converge on moral ideas. For example, consider the idea that forcefully killing an innocent person is wrong which hopefully the vast majority of people can recognize as wrong. Yet if I were omniscient, I could then foresee that even moving a rock from one place to another would end up killing someone 500 years later by causing them to trip on it and die. The fact that I didn't forcefully kill them seems to be of irrelevant distinction at this point now that I'm certain of the consequences. I could foresee that a person, currently innocent, would go on in the future to commit a terrorist act absent forceful intervention. In the antinatalist vs. natalist debate, I would be able to foresee exactly which hypothetical future children would suffer and resent their lives and which ones would end up most happy. Perhaps that would lead towards conditional natalism/antinatalism with such knowledge to counteract both the natalists who think bringing children into the world is always worth a risk and antinatalists who never think it's worth the risk. The risk factor is now gone given perfect foresight. There would be more moral questions from my perspective in such a scenario, not less, given such omniscience, unless omniscience caused our preferences to become perfectly aligned.
And you need to charge a fee!! This is VALUABLE and so so needed! You have a poetic rhythm, profound orator and an absolute phenomena. Your content should be accessible but FREE IS CANCELLED!!!
I keep trying to post the link to my LinkedIn ... I shared your video My profile is public but I'm not sure why it's not linking ... lame Tasha L Hansen, AuADHD MSW LICSW
Your face reaction and hands flow just in a good mode with your speech that makes me like what your talking about!!! Thank You
Thank you Dr. Joakim for making this video and simplifying this concept 🌼
Dr. Sahar, I wish I found you sooner! This video has been a great help to me and my studies. You explained the topic so well and so easily, that I completely understood you in the few minutes of this video compared to the hour-long lectures from my professors in college. Thank you so much!
I had so many confusion regarding this and ur video pop up ,it's been a great help
Unique way of teaching..
very good explanation, now I have an answer to my assignment
Perfectly explained!
Just Wow! just WoW !
Love this!
Great explanation!
Holy smokes. That was awesome. What a great explanation. Thank you. I even made cards like you did.
Can Kantian ethics be of an emotivist position metaethically?
I think yes, here's why suppose:
1-smith tortured vehemently a child.
2- socrates was looking at that child (the child being tortured) and then socrates said to smith (you shouldn't do that,that's morally wrong).
3-socrates takes his moral statement as a universal maxim.
4-it's possible that socrates said that ( the moral statement ) and he believed that moral statement, because the absence of a state of affairs in which a child is vehemently tortured is liked intrinsically in the intellect of socrates.
5-if 1 and 2 and 3 and 4,then kantian ethics can of an emotivist position metaethically.
So it seems that when we say that x is morally wrong that means nothing but we dislike x.
Now the disliking might be intrinsic to all individuals (persons).
Awesome, nicely explained.
This is instructive and entertaining. Love your teaching style. One question - does Kant’s philosophy address situations like lying to save someone. E.g. you want to save a person’s life by lying about it’s hiding location (imagine being asked that by a nazi in ww2). One may want for the universal law to be “do not lie” but when taken to its logical conclusion such law would be detrimental to the hiding person’s life.
English is not my primary language so hopefully you will understand what I mean.
Thanks for the great question! Look up a short essay by Immanuel Kant called “on the supposed right to lie from benevolent motives” and you will learn what Kant thinks about lying to save a life (just like the example you are inquiring about!)
@@saharjoakim Great. I’ll look into it. Thank you.
An "imperative" in Kant's terminology is a "command involving the moral ought". so "you ought to eat ur vegetables" is an imperative bc it has the moral ought.
hmm I don't know why someone has a MORAL obligation to eat vegetables. But, yes, you have the right idea about what an imperative is. Maybe misapplying it, however.
@@saharjoakim "Ought" has a prescriptive and predictive sense. When I use the word "moral" i mean it in the general study of ethics (so a moral ought i mean as an ethical statement as opposed to predictive statements like in science, e.g. chemical laws predicting how a reaction should go). I do understand that Kant limits the term "moral" to mean only "obligatory" principles so I can see where the confusion is. "You ought to eat your vegetables to get vitamins" is an imperative in general bc it contains a prescriptive ought (something like "Eating vegetables, ought to provide vitamins" is not an ethical sense of the word "ought"). Here is the text from the Grounding where Kant defines an "imperative": "The representation of an objective principle insofar as it necessitates the will is called a command (of reason) , and the formula of the command is called an imperative" (Trans. Ellington 413). I only mean to correct ur designation of "imperative" as "importance"...as that's not how Kant really uses it. Its only relevant if someone is studying for a philosophy test (as this was on my philosophy final exam). Its other importance is that ethics for kant is limited to practical reason (the will for kant). ethical statements like "Justice is an eye for an eye" would not be relevant for Kantian ethics bc its not technically a imperative used by practical reason...that is a statement of speculative reason that Kant strictly rejects being useful for ethics.
thank you..you help me a lot
Nomoskar Mam 🙏
I am from Bangladesh,Department Of Philosophy, University Of Dhaka.. .
I wanna talk to you mam!
What is the similarities between categorical and hypothetical imperative?
The categorical and hypothetical imperative are tools you may use to realize what you should do. The hypothetical imperative is a tool that you use to realize what you should do when you have some goal, and the categorical imperative is a tool that you use to realize what you should do regardless of your goals.
Thanku so much ma'am. Very nicely explained. But I have a question. In case of categorical imperative, if in a particular situation I am lying because through that I can save somebody from being killed by someone. Then shouldn't I lie to save someone?? What would be Kant's reply to this ma'am??
If you lie, even to try to save a life, you will live with the consequences of failing to treat the person to whom you are lying as an end in themselves.. could you will that doing so was universal law? Look up a short essay by Immanuel Kant called “on the supposed right to lie from benevolent motives” and you will learn what Kant thinks about lying to save a life
So the C.I. is internal while legislated laws are external?
hmm.. the C.I. is imposed on all reasoners from the fact that each is a reasoner.. Your reason may be "internal" so I see the draw to describe things in the way you are-- but maybe someone would argue that it too is imposed on you from the external (since, reason itself is external from YOUR mind)
@@saharjoakim interesting! Reasoning is not conscious:-)
@@havefunbesafe Do you think, or does thinking happen in you? :) Have a great day!
It feels like thinking happens automatically. Telling yourself not to think doesn’t work. Our background processes in the brain our always at work consciously, unconsciously and subconsciously maybe?
'Good' and 'bad' are social constructs. The natural world doesn't have these arbitrary definitions, they wholly exist in the world of humans, and it is religion that gives us the terms and defines them for us.
So, wrestling with these terms and their application comes from within. We can look to god for help, but essentially, on the grounds that it's a social construct, it comes from within.
I'm confused a lot by the Categorical Imperative's practical application. For example, what about the many cases where what we subjectively will to be universal law is so far different from someone else leading to a major conflict of interests for society? As an example, antinatalists believe it is in humanity's best interest to go extinct by refraining from procreation while natalists believe it is in humanity's best interest to continue existing through reproduction. How might a Kantian resolve such differences of opinion in terms of what best serves humanity?
You are right that a difference in opinion between people implies two people will different ideas as universal law- those differing ideas might be incompatible. According to Kant, people's opinions are not necessarily right/true/good/correct. Truth is not subjective. Anyone can be wrong about reality. So, Kant can reply: natalist are wrong in their opinion and therefore their will is misguided (Or maybe anti-natalist are wrong and their will is therefore misguided). Both natalists and antinatalists can't be correct, one position must be false (actually, both camps might be incorrect assuming there is a third option). ...People's opinions about what best serves humanity might differ, and they do, Kant is after the objective truth rather than what we believe is true (the subjective).
@@saharjoakim Yet just suggesting that one must be right and other wrong or both wrong seems so impractical to me. How can anyone be expected to know this higher but evasive moral truth assuming it exists? And if we become omniscient beings all-knowing, is that supposed to resolve conflicts of interests? I would think it would create more conflicts now that we have an infinitely larger database upon which to form our varied interests. Thank you for your time by the way!
@@darkengine5931 Notice that you generated an alternative possibility. Option One: natalist are correct. Option Two: anti-natalist are correct. Option Three: whether humans should go extinct is not within the realm of what humans can know. //...Yes, in theory, if every human was omniscient then there would be no conflict (we all know the single truth, so there can be no disagreement about what to do, what to believe, etc.) Conflict is generally a disagreement between two or more parties about what is good/true/correct/etc. Thanks for the great questions, you are a thinker!
@@saharjoakim I'm actually of the thought that omniscience would cause our moral thoughts to diverge further, not converge, in spite of answering all possible scientific questions.
For example, suppose a select few of us became omniscient able to foresee every possible consequence of every possible action, and let's suppose that we can still arrive at a utilitarian consensus on what sort of net utility metric we use to measure all possible future universe states.
There might still be an infinite variety of universes whose net utility, when measured over infinite time, are equal. For example, I might favor a Star Trek universe with humans exploring space. Another person might favor a universe of equal utility of human beings returning to a more primitive state of being more in harmony with nature.
If the metric factored in utility for all living creatures and not merely human beings, that might yield a smaller subset of universes of equal utility, but perhaps still an infinite variety. It seems to me that, at this point, all we can do to select among these possible universes of equal utility is express our most personal of interests.
@@saharjoakim On the contrary, I think it's our shared ignorance that allows us to converge on moral ideas. For example, consider the idea that forcefully killing an innocent person is wrong which hopefully the vast majority of people can recognize as wrong.
Yet if I were omniscient, I could then foresee that even moving a rock from one place to another would end up killing someone 500 years later by causing them to trip on it and die. The fact that I didn't forcefully kill them seems to be of irrelevant distinction at this point now that I'm certain of the consequences. I could foresee that a person, currently innocent, would go on in the future to commit a terrorist act absent forceful intervention.
In the antinatalist vs. natalist debate, I would be able to foresee exactly which hypothetical future children would suffer and resent their lives and which ones would end up most happy. Perhaps that would lead towards conditional natalism/antinatalism with such knowledge to counteract both the natalists who think bringing children into the world is always worth a risk and antinatalists who never think it's worth the risk. The risk factor is now gone given perfect foresight.
There would be more moral questions from my perspective in such a scenario, not less, given such omniscience, unless omniscience caused our preferences to become perfectly aligned.
You're brilliant - are you on LinkedIn?
Should I be? Www.SaharJoakim.net
And you need to charge a fee!!
This is VALUABLE and so so needed! You have a poetic rhythm, profound orator and an absolute phenomena. Your content should be accessible but FREE IS CANCELLED!!!
I keep trying to post the link to my LinkedIn ... I shared your video
My profile is public but I'm not sure why it's not linking ... lame
Tasha L Hansen, AuADHD MSW LICSW
@@tlhansen6937 you’re too kind. Thank you
Truly.. Dr. Joakim, Thank you❤️🔥
I'm a recovering mormon and this video is healing - in many ways.