Appreciate it very much plus i was thinking of studying Philosophy in college and you are helping me to get a head start on my study's i very much thank you
I've listened to the Categorical Imperative at least twenty times and you are the first person who acknowledged that I could refuse to answer. Every other teacher I've listened to on this subject insists that one must tell the truth and that that means a flaw in the imperative. SMDH...
Hi Paul! Yes, it's often a way of dismissing the Kantian approach to morality. But, I think it's a lazy (or perhaps just uninformed) way of objecting to Kant. That's not to say there aren't good objections, but this one is not very compelling.
I could see practical scenarios where refusing to answer would almost certainly get your friends killed. For example, refusing to answer the gestapo asking if Jewish refugees are hiding inside our home might result in them definitely and exhaustively searching the home, taking that refusal to answer as good as "yes". In that case, the practical consequences of refusing to answer would be identical to speaking the truth and ratting them out. Our only hope of saving them in such a scenario might be to lie in that case. That makes refusal to answer no longer a viable option if we want any fighting chance to protect those refugees.
Hi Dark Engine! OK, so you're observation really helps us focus on the distinction Kant is making between "hypothetical" versus "categorical" obligation. He believes that morality, in order to function, must be universal, and in order to be universal, it must be absolute. Only a principle that could be binding on any rational agent (regardless of the circumstances) can be rightly considered a moral obligation. The Categorical Imperative is therefore what he identifies as the only rationally derived principle that could so function. Given that the CI is not only objective, but also absolute, means there are no circumstances where one moral obligation could outweigh another. Perhaps a simpler way of putting it is that for Kant, morality has nothing to do with creating the best outcome (that would make morality teleological and that is something he rejects). We are not, according to Kant, responsible for the outcome of our action, but rather for making them in the right way. In the example here, we are not responsible for the actions of the would-be assassin, but only our own. So the question is not which action will create the best outcome in the scenario, but what is our obligation in the scenario. Since lying is absolutely wrong, it cannot be the rational choice. I think it's also important to point out that Kant allows for moral tragedy. Since I'm not responsible for the would-be assassin's actions, it is possible that my obligation to not lie and my obligation to protect the innocent create such a tragedy. But that is the fault of the assassin, not me. I hope that helps!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Could we not state that constraining someone else (I'm assuming forcefully, not persuasively) from doing what they wish to do is not in accordance with what we will to be universal law? Kantian ethics seem to operate under idealistic circumstances not excusing violations to the universal law as a reason to break it, so I would think such coercion would be in violation just as deceit.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Also how might Kant view the law enforcer who finds the obligation to forcefully arrest the murderer or possibly kill him if he resists? Is that not a violation of universal law if there are no exceptions to ideas like "don't lie" or "don't kill"? Would they be considered a "necessary evil"?
@@darkengine5931 Please note I'm not arguing that Kant is correct, just trying to help elucidate his view. That said, I think Kant would argue that constraint or resistance is not equal to deceit. In order to lie, one would have to suppose the other is acting as a rational agent which I can manipulate to a desired outcome by providing them with false information (and thereby acting on a hypothetical as opposed to categorical imperative). To resist or restrain does not. I can restrain a non-rational agent (say, a dog) from doing harm without violating my obligation under the CI. Similarly (though it is a very imperfect analogy) the would-be assissin is acting contrary to her own rational nature and so if persuasion fails, restraint (assuming one had the power to do so) would provide time for them to recover their reason. Of course, Kant also recognizes that we often chose to act contrary to our rational nature which is why he thinks humans are "radically evil" (we know better, but we do it anyway). You are quite correct to identify Kant's view as "idealistic". I think he would say that is precisely the point; but not in the sense of "something not achievable". On the one hand, we have to have the ability to act according to the CI, otherwise it wouldn't be a moral principle. On the other hand, as finite beings we often chose to act in a way that's contrary to the CI; but it's always our choice. This is why he claims that the ONLY thing that can be imagined as good in itself (either in or out of the universe) is a will (i.e., being) that ALWAYS choses the good.
@@barryvaughan290 Understood! I somewhat want to interrogate Kant through you, so please forgive my questioning! The more I read of Kant, the more questions I tend to have. 😀
I have so many videos I want to do! It's really a matter of having the time. I'm still teaching full-time, so I'm seriously limited at present. But I will keep working! Thanks for watching!
Working on it. I'm a full-time professor, so I've limited time to work on these videos, but I hope to get to many more in the future. Thanks for watching!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy I would really appreciate a Lecture on Plato's Allegory of the Cave in the Future. Hope its something that will be done in the future. Thanks so much for all the Hard work and effort being done into the previous videos, enjoyed it very much.
@@jasoncloete8348 Hi Jason! I've got a whole series on the Republic planned, and the Divided Line and Allegory of the Cave will be an important part. I wish I could give you an ETA, but as I'm working full-time as a professor, I've limited time to make the videos. BUT, more are coming! Thanks for watching!
Hello, I'm going to give you the award for most underrated channel on youtube. This is awsone. Thankyou thankyou.
Thanks, Ben. That's very kind. I'm glad you found these videos helpful!
Appreciate it very much plus i was thinking of studying Philosophy in college and you are helping me to get a head start on my study's i very much thank you
I've listened to the Categorical Imperative at least twenty times and you are the first person who acknowledged that I could refuse to answer. Every other teacher I've listened to on this subject insists that one must tell the truth and that that means a flaw in the imperative. SMDH...
Hi Paul!
Yes, it's often a way of dismissing the Kantian approach to morality. But, I think it's a lazy (or perhaps just uninformed) way of objecting to Kant. That's not to say there aren't good objections, but this one is not very compelling.
I could see practical scenarios where refusing to answer would almost certainly get your friends killed. For example, refusing to answer the gestapo asking if Jewish refugees are hiding inside our home might result in them definitely and exhaustively searching the home, taking that refusal to answer as good as "yes".
In that case, the practical consequences of refusing to answer would be identical to speaking the truth and ratting them out. Our only hope of saving them in such a scenario might be to lie in that case. That makes refusal to answer no longer a viable option if we want any fighting chance to protect those refugees.
Isnt stoicism also a virtue ethics? They are based on the same telos of obtaining eudaimonia or arete.
I don't understand why attempting to constrain the murderer is acceptable while lying is not. Both seem to arguably treat the murderer as a means.
Hi Dark Engine!
OK, so you're observation really helps us focus on the distinction Kant is making between "hypothetical" versus "categorical" obligation. He believes that morality, in order to function, must be universal, and in order to be universal, it must be absolute. Only a principle that could be binding on any rational agent (regardless of the circumstances) can be rightly considered a moral obligation. The Categorical Imperative is therefore what he identifies as the only rationally derived principle that could so function. Given that the CI is not only objective, but also absolute, means there are no circumstances where one moral obligation could outweigh another. Perhaps a simpler way of putting it is that for Kant, morality has nothing to do with creating the best outcome (that would make morality teleological and that is something he rejects). We are not, according to Kant, responsible for the outcome of our action, but rather for making them in the right way.
In the example here, we are not responsible for the actions of the would-be assassin, but only our own. So the question is not which action will create the best outcome in the scenario, but what is our obligation in the scenario. Since lying is absolutely wrong, it cannot be the rational choice.
I think it's also important to point out that Kant allows for moral tragedy. Since I'm not responsible for the would-be assassin's actions, it is possible that my obligation to not lie and my obligation to protect the innocent create such a tragedy. But that is the fault of the assassin, not me.
I hope that helps!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Could we not state that constraining someone else (I'm assuming forcefully, not persuasively) from doing what they wish to do is not in accordance with what we will to be universal law? Kantian ethics seem to operate under idealistic circumstances not excusing violations to the universal law as a reason to break it, so I would think such coercion would be in violation just as deceit.
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy Also how might Kant view the law enforcer who finds the obligation to forcefully arrest the murderer or possibly kill him if he resists? Is that not a violation of universal law if there are no exceptions to ideas like "don't lie" or "don't kill"? Would they be considered a "necessary evil"?
@@darkengine5931 Please note I'm not arguing that Kant is correct, just trying to help elucidate his view. That said, I think Kant would argue that constraint or resistance is not equal to deceit. In order to lie, one would have to suppose the other is acting as a rational agent which I can manipulate to a desired outcome by providing them with false information (and thereby acting on a hypothetical as opposed to categorical imperative). To resist or restrain does not. I can restrain a non-rational agent (say, a dog) from doing harm without violating my obligation under the CI. Similarly (though it is a very imperfect analogy) the would-be assissin is acting contrary to her own rational nature and so if persuasion fails, restraint (assuming one had the power to do so) would provide time for them to recover their reason. Of course, Kant also recognizes that we often chose to act contrary to our rational nature which is why he thinks humans are "radically evil" (we know better, but we do it anyway).
You are quite correct to identify Kant's view as "idealistic". I think he would say that is precisely the point; but not in the sense of "something not achievable". On the one hand, we have to have the ability to act according to the CI, otherwise it wouldn't be a moral principle. On the other hand, as finite beings we often chose to act in a way that's contrary to the CI; but it's always our choice. This is why he claims that the ONLY thing that can be imagined as good in itself (either in or out of the universe) is a will (i.e., being) that ALWAYS choses the good.
@@barryvaughan290 Understood! I somewhat want to interrogate Kant through you, so please forgive my questioning! The more I read of Kant, the more questions I tend to have. 😀
may you also consider doing a video format for
Phi 105
Phi 201
Phi 244
ReI 205
I have so many videos I want to do! It's really a matter of having the time. I'm still teaching full-time, so I'm seriously limited at present. But I will keep working!
Thanks for watching!
If you please continue uploading and stuffs
Working on it. I'm a full-time professor, so I've limited time to work on these videos, but I hope to get to many more in the future.
Thanks for watching!
@@ALittleBitofPhilosophy
I would really appreciate a Lecture on Plato's Allegory of the Cave in the Future.
Hope its something that will be done in the future.
Thanks so much for all the Hard work and effort being done into the previous videos, enjoyed it very much.
@@jasoncloete8348 Hi Jason! I've got a whole series on the Republic planned, and the Divided Line and Allegory of the Cave will be an important part. I wish I could give you an ETA, but as I'm working full-time as a professor, I've limited time to make the videos. BUT, more are coming!
Thanks for watching!