30:25 would it make a difference if you knew your wife wasn’t asking for an answer, but because she wants reassurance from someone who loves her? And presumably there’s a universal understanding between loved ones to act in a supportive and kind way, and people also wouldn’t ask vulnerable questions if everyone was completely honest all the time, it would be too high risk.
"No. The dress does not make you look fat. " That is the truth. Being fat is what makes her looks fat. And some people are more fatter than others. What if your boss asked you if you liked him and you hated his guts?🤔😏😉
I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that since having compassion for someone who doesn’t deserve it offends our sense of justice and natural response of anger towards atrocity, it must follow that compassion is an unreliable moral motivator. I don’t see that a need for punishment would create any less biased a response than a foundation of compassion. Compassion is also a guiding feeling that doesn’t necessitate a certain action or extreme leniency. I can have complete compassion, feeling deeply for the victims of a shooting and even having compassion for the shooter, that doesn’t mean letting the shooter off. You can still see that it will cause more suffering, which you as a compassionate person care about, if a violent person is allowed to inflict the same suffering again. Likewise in a case where the person is unlikely to repeat their action or highly open to changing (probably not a shooter) then the most pragmatic option for the good of society would be to rehabilitate the individual, not to be blinded by our impulse for punishment. Punitive justice doesn’t have to be an ideal in itself. If we make the societal good the principal, punitive justice will often be the resulting action, but not always. That said, I’m still human and when people do awful things I want them to be punished, and I certainly am not able to feel compassion for every individual, I just don’t necessarily disagree with a theory of radical compassion, and I don’t think feelings of resistance to a theory are a good reason to discredit it.
Kant's Morality and Ethics is not fully deontological, rather his approach is that of a Framework and System Model where deontology is merely one of the main element of the system. Kant's moral and ethical system include consequentialism and utilitarianism elements as well. The categorical imperatives [as reasoned] are impossible-ideals which are merely to be used as standards and guides within the system and the CI is never used to be imposed nor enforced.
Have you ever driven a car while "buzzed" or while "texting" and were lucky enough not too suffer bad consquences? The next time you might not have such good luck!
The compassion example you used for your inherent good example is erroneous. Compassion in its truest sense is applied irrespective of whether someone deserves it or not. The very idea of compassion is to help someone when they cannot benefit you, be they “good” people or “bad people” and I would further argue compassion is its strongest form is applied against those who are bad or have wronged us.
Is philosophy relevant? At what point does it stop being helpful and just become it's own self realization, engrossed in esoteric terms, to exclude the majority of the population and elevate the philosopher into an elite, intellectual clique.
100forks If this isn't relevant in a culture that thinks the actions of absent mothers/fathers are right or world's where Nazi officer rule is autonomous you might want a few hours of quiet reflection in front of the mirror.
Of course it's relevant. The fact that the majority of the population don't know how to evaluate ethical behaviors and put them under philosophical scrutiny doesn't negate the helpfulness of philosophy. As you can tell, most people don't have a very firm grasp of philosophy and ethics, to test this theory you can try asking the average person about ethical questions and they will be unable to justify their reasoning very well. This is not good because if you are unable to logically justify their thinking how can you criticize anyone else's views? Who is right?
Truth is good in and of itself. It may not always be beneficial or pleasant, but it is always virtuous.
30:25 would it make a difference if you knew your wife wasn’t asking for an answer, but because she wants reassurance from someone who loves her?
And presumably there’s a universal understanding between loved ones to act in a supportive and kind way, and people also wouldn’t ask vulnerable questions if everyone was completely honest all the time, it would be too high risk.
"No. The dress does not make you look fat. " That is the truth. Being fat is what makes her looks fat. And some people are more fatter than others. What if your boss asked you if you liked him and you hated his guts?🤔😏😉
thanks a lot prof. thorsby for your wonderful lecture on kant. you have a very clear n concise style of teaching. helps a lot:)
I don’t think it’s a forgone conclusion that since having compassion for someone who doesn’t deserve it offends our sense of justice and natural response of anger towards atrocity, it must follow that compassion is an unreliable moral motivator. I don’t see that a need for punishment would create any less biased a response than a foundation of compassion. Compassion is also a guiding feeling that doesn’t necessitate a certain action or extreme leniency. I can have complete compassion, feeling deeply for the victims of a shooting and even having compassion for the shooter, that doesn’t mean letting the shooter off. You can still see that it will cause more suffering, which you as a compassionate person care about, if a violent person is allowed to inflict the same suffering again. Likewise in a case where the person is unlikely to repeat their action or highly open to changing (probably not a shooter) then the most pragmatic option for the good of society would be to rehabilitate the individual, not to be blinded by our impulse for punishment. Punitive justice doesn’t have to be an ideal in itself. If we make the societal good the principal, punitive justice will often be the resulting action, but not always.
That said, I’m still human and when people do awful things I want them to be punished, and I certainly am not able to feel compassion for every individual, I just don’t necessarily disagree with a theory of radical compassion, and I don’t think feelings of resistance to a theory are a good reason to discredit it.
Kant's Morality and Ethics is not fully deontological, rather his approach is that of a Framework and System Model where deontology is merely one of the main element of the system. Kant's moral and ethical system include consequentialism and utilitarianism elements as well. The categorical imperatives [as reasoned] are impossible-ideals which are merely to be used as standards and guides within the system and the CI is never used to be imposed nor enforced.
Have you ever driven a car while "buzzed" or while "texting" and were lucky enough not too suffer bad consquences? The next time you might not have such good luck!
helped me alot!!!
All ethical frameworks have PROBLEMS 44:00 🤔😏😉
If the body is affirming God for kant, for a kantian it would be some papers
The compassion example you used for your inherent good example is erroneous. Compassion in its truest sense is applied irrespective of whether someone deserves it or not. The very idea of compassion is to help someone when they cannot benefit you, be they “good” people or “bad people” and I would further argue compassion is its strongest form is applied against those who are bad or have wronged us.
Is philosophy relevant? At what point does it stop being helpful and just become it's own self realization, engrossed in esoteric terms, to exclude the majority of the population and elevate the philosopher into an elite, intellectual clique.
100forks If this isn't relevant in a culture that thinks the actions of absent mothers/fathers are right or world's where Nazi officer rule is autonomous you might want a few hours of quiet reflection in front of the mirror.
Of course it's relevant. The fact that the majority of the population don't know how to evaluate ethical behaviors and put them under philosophical scrutiny doesn't negate the helpfulness of philosophy. As you can tell, most people don't have a very firm grasp of philosophy and ethics, to test this theory you can try asking the average person about ethical questions and they will be unable to justify their reasoning very well. This is not good because if you are unable to logically justify their thinking how can you criticize anyone else's views? Who is right?