Kant's Ethics

today we're going to be discussing the ethics of a manual taught so here you see my own little bookshelf of books on cot club is one of the most important philosophers ever to live lives he's right up there with the Plato Aristotle Descartes he is perhaps the person really defines modern philosophy we're going to be looking at a number of aspects of his thought Richard Rorty has said that Caan is really the person who turned philosophy into a profession before that most philosophers actually did something else for a living Leibniz who was the teacher of the teacher of God was somebody who was a diplomat by trade he wrote philosophy on the side Descartes was a private tutor John Locke was a medical doctor David Hume was a historian and so on Spinoza was an eyeglass maker so most philosophers throughout that modern period anyway we're not really professional they did something else for a living abroad philosophy on the side but cost was a professional professor of philosophy and Bertie said basically turned it into a profession because his thought was so complicated that after thought you had to be a professional to understand what was going on so tough is difficult I dunno if you found the reading different always is harder in the original German I once did a sort of reading test to determine grade levels of various philosophers Plato writes in about 10th grade London Aristotle 11th grade level hunt 17 and a half okay ie sort of like halfway through graduate school level and that's in the English translations the original German is wave worse some native German speakers actually read cause in English because the translators break up the sentences and make it easier to follow so anyway we're going to be looking at concepts today and in particular the rolling asides reason in ethics David Hume has the view that ethics is really not about reason it's about something else it's ultimately founded on feeling thought is exactly the opposite of that no it's not feeling it is reason and is his reasons for that actually are closely related to Hume anyway we're going to look at two West in caught I think it's helpful to see what's going on by distinguishing these questions they're important from any philosophical point of view but in cause I think they become especially important there is a question of how we tell right from wrong and let's call that a practical test I'm looking for something that I can have as a practical guide to what to do and what not to do what's right what's wrong and then there's a more theoretical question we can ask what makes right actions right what makes wrong actions wrong if something is a bad trait of character what makes it a bad trait of character and that's a different sort of question think about a scientific analogy suppose we're trying to distinguish the acids from basis for example well there's a practical question of how we tell acids from bases in practical terms what we can use the tests and then there's a theoretical question of what makes something an acid what makes something a base so think about the difference between those as a practical matter how do you tell whether something is an acid or a base yeah you test for pH and so you can do that in a variety of ways using phenolphthalein or litmus paper or the kinds of pool chemicals test things they give you when you have a swimming pool there are a variety of chemical tests for this but you determine the pH level and that has something to do with this so you might say ah but this paper turned blue and that tells you something or I put in this cup slat aha it turned red and that tells you something but now what about the erection what is it that makes an after than that well this is high school chemistry folks this isn't my party what is it that makes up a sub base yeah good hydrogen ions in the case of an asset right it's not H plusses floating around the taken an acid and it's the OHS is floating around that make it a base okay so it's either the positive hydrogen ions or the hydroxide ions that are negative that it's going to determine this so the theoretical question is different and in fact it's not much practical health right in this case if I said oh yeah just going to find out there H blessings but waiting cool didn't I do that right that's not a very practical test on the other hand saying well drop in a bit of litmus paper it's not a very few restaurant answer to what that makes an acid an acid so there really is a difference and we can ask both sorts of questions in ethical theory God gives us a kind of answer we will see that in a sense for him right acts or rationalize that's at least how we're going to think of it from a theoretical point of view practically it's more helpful to think of this in a somewhat different way right acts as a practical test or respectful and wrong acts are disrespectful but in the more theoretical sense a wrong act is in some deep sense attractions so there's going to be an answer for the question why the moral in the end it is the rational thing to do by the way there I have a little map that shows you where cough lives he never traveled more than ten miles from the place of his birth which was Kaliningrad we're in the old name that it had when he lived there kuving's Berg who was part of prussia today it's actually a part of russia that is separated from the rest of russia separated from it by by the ruse holding the Baltic States and so you can see where it is right there actually there was recently a big issue it was in the news because of missiles being placed by Russia if you're a math person it's in the news because of the famous seven bridges of königsberg problem so anyway that's how I knew about it okay so let me remind you of something from aristotle we distinguished intrinsic goods things that are good for their own sake things that are good in themselves for instrumental goods things that are good for the sake of something else and indeed we asked this question what is good for its own sake well the ultimate answer is happiness happiness is always good for its own sake and never for the sake of something else there are lots of things that are good for their own sake and the sake of something else including virtues moral virtues intellectual virgins okay it's good to be smart for a variety of reasons it's good to have knowledge it's good to be courageous it's good to be generous it's good to be kind and so on and all of those things are good for something else namely living a good life and eating living well you might say but also they're good for where is particular things comp begins by asking a similar question but it's slightly different he asks what is good without qualification and what makes it different from a qualifying group so the distinction here is not really intrinsic good for systems for metal good it's instead a good without qualification as opposed to a qualified good so an unqualified good is one that would be good no matter what good under any circumstance good under any conditions for anyone a qualified good is good for something it's good for someone it's good under certain conditions good yes certain conditions are fulfilled now the question he asks is well what is good without qualification are there things that are good without qualification it's easy to think of qualified right things that are good certain purposes instrumentally or things that are good for something good under certain conditions would if various things happen but is there anything he asked that is good without qualification and here is his answer a good will he says it's not only good without qualification but the only thing that's food without qualification so let's take a look at how he says this and why here is how the whole work begins nothing can possibly be conceived in the world or even aliens which can be called good without qualification except a good will now right away we see the cloud is after something big nothing can be conceived in the world or even out of it what does that tell us about what he's looking for what does he have in mind even out of it yeah good looking for concepts in the mind that will tell you what is good no matter what good under any possible circumstances not just what is good typically or what is good for mankind it's very different from Aristotle school Aristotle says right at the beginning I'm talking about what is good for human beings what it is for a human being to live a good life and he says I'm going to be able to tell you the answer only generally for the most part okay I'll be able to get those kinds of rules but I won't be able to say anything with any kind of necessity I'm talking about what is generally good for human being in most circumstances God is saying I'm interested in something that is really going to be good no matter what even outside this world now what could be viewed as outside this world what is he thinking about yeah oh we might do it before moral principles that can be applied to come moral concepts can be applied to God or to angels right or to aliens okay every thought laughs what is the good for mankind but what if you want to ask what is good for any kind of being at all what is good for in particular comfort will save rational beings whether they are human beings or maybe animals or I don't know Ferengi Klingons there could be all sorts of alien beings right and suppose it be destroys it enslaves its people can we make any moral judgment on earth Sicilian grounds you might say well I know what's good for Humanity I don't know what's good for Klingon what a cruise these alien species are so I can't say anything about them but Claude would say that's ridiculous insofar as I know that these alien beings are rational beings of course I can come to moral conclusions about that if I encounter aliens on some worlds in Star Trek 10 guck I know what moral principles are involved in Iraq with the it's not as if I have to suddenly start over and say ah throw ethics out the window I don't know what's going to be good for these bees I can talk about something that is good without qualification under any circumstance yeah well it's important that those are rational beings yeah they have to be able to access rationality if they're really not rational beings then nothing he'll say is really going to apply to them and so yeah well let's see a kid are there examples in science fiction of encounters with beings that are alien life forms that are just not decisions and so so yeah in a case like that would say well there we do in a limit but on the other hand are these moral beings that we don't have to suppose that do they have a conception of the good life what would it be to live well for them we don't have to ask those questions to answer consequence many things and here's a way of seeing it graphically you might ask about the things that are good for something in some context and you know lots of conditions are good for something somehow somewhere petri dishes are good for the growth of bacteria fungi and so forth but they're not really good for us then we can talk about what's good for mankind in general we could talk about what's good for any rational agent and that's a smaller set of things Claude is looking for principles keep in mind these are rationals and he is looking for principles that are going to be true necessarily in university so he thinks it is possible for us to have synthetic a priori knowledge in acts of what is universally true when it's necessarily true and that's already coming out in the first sentence he's interested in things that are going to apply necessarily be good no matter what in this world or even in other poss world's even on other planets even for the angels even perhaps for God so he starts by looking at aerosols proposals for this he says intelligence wit judgment the other talents of the mine however they may be named now what is he talking about your intelligence with judge what are they in air they're somewhat empiricists we have to pull our minds all the way back to September I know that's difficult to a month together two months worth of philosophy not to mention well 2,000 years of lots going by but but yeah here intellectual virtues right they're virtues and specifically intellectual virtues and then he turns courage resolution perseverance is qualities of temperament one of those moral virtues right they are undoubtedly good and desirable in many respects but these gifts of nature may also become extremely bad he says and mischievous if the will which is to make use of them in which therefore constitutes what is called character is not so he's saying look intellectual virtues moral virtues yes they're good things they're good in themselves Marisol is right about but are they good without qualification are they good necessarily no matter what answer is no now why not why would intelligence sometimes be back yeah someone who yeah good someone who's using intelligence through evil suppose somebody does not have a good will suppose you've got an evil character okay think of your favorite movie villain it makes them worse that they're smart right it it makes them worse if they're persevering one way to think about this is to think about your nemesis imagine that you've got an enemy somebody who hates you somebody who wants to destroy your life all they do is plot day-to-day how to make you miserable okay now if that if you wealth in it their good time something's where I thought I got such a person but let's say this is just imaginary for you you're just thinking okay what would it be like now I'm imagining that arch-villain out to get me is it better if that person is intelligent if they're witty tell fun jokes is they get me is it better for me if they have good judgment is it better if they're courageous if they're resolute persevering constantly trying to get me or what I prefer it that there's kind of stupid dull have bad judgment are cuddly right give up easily what would you rather have this event the intelligent brave resolute person or the stupid power neighbors now cod gives a sort of different argument when he gets to the good support because they are assistant what about things like power riches honor health those are things also that we would have put in that intersection between the services of instrumental Goods and intrinsic are those sorts of things going to be always good good without qualification is it always better for example to help our for the times when it would be bad to be Power yeah okay really you might be the one who is in control and everybody will see you for the solution of some terrible problem and you got huh okay then it might be a bad thing to be powerful because in fact you're facing a problem you can't solve and everybody expects you to solve it or are there occasions where riches would not be a good thing yep okay good maybe you want to follow the lifestyle of a Tibetan monk and actually all these Richard sentiments album for you makes it very hard write it in the biblical story of the rich young man who was not willing to give up that lifestyle and so that could be a problem it could be that riches are a problem for another reason maybe your riches the eve of the French Revolution and it turns out that's a very bad thing to be off with your head or you could think about Cambodia where once Paul taught pain in charge anyone who had any degree of education or any affluence was killed so one test was do you have eyeglass that tells you that indicates you could read that indicate some level of education and affluence so you were executed at uni classes or here's how they used to tell what to do with children they would give a child a hot bowl of rice and the poor children who weren't used to eating with spoons with no to blow on the rice to cool it down before they touch them but the children who had been rich enough to have a spoon to eat with we're used to actually diving into the rice and then they'd be blowing on the spoon and so if the child had reached in and earned his or her fingers by touching the hot rice he or she would be beaten to death with the shell and those are cases there wasn't no Bridget I mean it was even kind of a minimal prosperity did you have a spoon evening that turned out to be something that gave you the death penalty so these are circumstances where you say yeah it's not always good to be racist sometimes it's a terrible thing what about health is it always a good thing to be healthy I miss pretty buff away these but can you think of a case where it's actually bad yeah ooh okay you're being sold in the slave auction maybe then to be healthy is actually to your disadvantage because yeah they're gonna get a higher price that they're gonna expect more out of you and so maybe that's on occasion where you'd really rather be passed over and rejected and actually be highly sought out what about another condition let's say ah now here's the really big Aristotle says the final food is happiness right that's the thing that we're all really ultimately seeking eudaimonia living well surely that is something that's good without qualification God says well wait a minute not so fast even happiness inspires pride and often presumption that there isn't a good will to correct attendance so are there occasions where happiness is actually bad for a person okay so yeah you might have several reasons why in a situation where let's say there's some sort of disaster that strikes happiness is a bad thing for one thing if you're actually happy under some circumstances you might think there's something morally wrong with you but by putting that aside it may be that you're sitting there contented when you really ought to be working very hard to develop the skills you need to survive and maybe prior happiness led you into a sense of complacency we didn't develop skills you now meet yep good happy because you just don't know what's going on all sorts of disasters are occurring around you and you're just completely unaware of you're oblivious you're just walking around doing your own thing and you know the world is falling apart and you're just sitting there reading HUS column oh well you know it might be that's a communication where your happiness is not doing a good thing you want to be aware of what's going around yeah oh yes what about the murderer the serial killer who is happy when he gets it okay that's a case where we look at the happiness and think this is a good thing you know here's the guy sitting there thinking very happy why because I ignored another person to its death last night that's not good and those would caught says actually he's about to say his something highly relevant to this he says the sight of a bee who is in the door with a single feature full of pure and good will enjoying unbroken prosperity can never give pleasure to an impartial rational spectrum this becomes a key test but somebody who is not involved but who is rational approve of this well would they always approve of somebody being happy the answer is no suppose I do make up and the person is very happy when they get away with these crimes and at the end they that would be I'm an impartial rational spectator when I go to the movies and I don't want to see the bad guy getting away with it I want to see the bad guy in the end suffer and so the impartial rational spectator doesn't really approve of the happiness the kids in happiness if somebody without even a vestige of a good will now if the person is some element of it maybe you say oh there's something that makes that character read evil but suppose there isn't so there's nothing good about this character at all then in fact their unbroken prosperity seems to us disturbing not something to give you actually their movies they're sort of like this Goodfellas is my favorite tenant for a movie that where the heroes as if they're all a pretty disgusting terrible people and where it seems just awful but to think of that being happy take the scene where the guy delivers the pizza too slowly and so he just shoots him in the foot later they murder it out just because you brought the pizza too slow I mean those are bad people and I don't want them to get away decide well anyway that's just me maybe you feel different maybe you think no but that's bad that's something that shouldn't make you happy and if it does that's something of rational impartial spectator would disapprove on no notice there's another element of what he mentioned a moment ago would will to go along with it think of people who enjoy success very young okay can you think of people who are ruined by that they do enjoy great prosperity great honor great success great esteem at a very early age but they're too immature to handle that and then ends up growing their life Lindsay Lohan yeah yeah take almost any Disney Channel star five years later and they're good examples of this sort of thing where happiness at you know not under the right conditions ends up inspiring pride and presumption and really set somebody up for a fall so it is very easy to find cases in popular culture of people who have suffered in exactly the way caught in visions here no underlying all of us if all those are bad candidates what's the good candidate for something that is good without qualification it's a good will but that just raises the question well what's that he says a good will is something that would act on the basis of universal considerations okay would not be influenced by subjective particular determinations and then it go easiest way to imagine this is to imagine that I'm assigning your grades at the end and what do you want me to be influenced by what should I not be influenced so here's the point really the proper and a nest full worth of it absolutely could really since consist just in this but the principle of action is free from all influences so imagine that I am actually doing this assignment phrase and my question is what are some things that I should be taking into account what are some things I should first proposal things I shouldn't take into account is let's say who you're voting for tomorrow I shouldn't be thinking about that right I should not be at the end be thinking oh this you know okay I wouldn't know it suppose I did know I shouldn't be evaluating anything like that that should be making any difference what are some other things that should be any difference okay so alright well lose nobody else Peppa right that would be ridiculous I couldn't be doing my own opinion about so there are some philosophical issues here that I do have personal opinions on should I evaluate your paper on whether I agree with your criticism of cause of personal or they are it is no of course not I should be evaluating on the basis of how well your philosophizing not on the basis whether I at the end agree with your position or not so that's something that would be a subjective particular determination by only preference the angel' I would give to that that's not something I should be using in evaluating what you're doing there's no bearing on his philosophy great and so this is something that I should not be taking into account I shouldn't say well I I happen to know that he's a great bass player and so a good I shouldn't be doing that I own particular feeling at the time so relevant to the great that you deserve so what are some things that I should weep and yeah your performance exactly your performance on things that are relevant to the course and so I should be paying attention that clearly you express yourself watch how well you pack up what you save with arguments how will you understand the philosophical argument of your own so forth but I shouldn't be paying attention to all these other contingent things now that is in general you might say what I should be doing I should be happy from how about respects to the moral law I have a certain duty here to evaluate you on the basis of your philosophical ability and performance and that's what I ought to be doing not any of these other things and so the fact that I happen to like you personally or that I happen to disagree with the conclusion you come to with respect to John Locke's philosophy or whatever none of that should matter I should be acting from duty now there are two kinds of moral theory and causes very clearly giving up not only an example of one of these two kinds but an extreme example a consequentialist says that the value of an action depends entirely on its consequences and so we've looked at examples of consequentialists like men - the middle who the essays the consequences of actions they determine the moral value of those actions determined whether they're good or bad right or wrong etc damn televizzle is the view that it depends on more than just consequences and so our consequence is everything well if you answer yes your consequence if you answer no you're a damn columnist but now you might say well suppose how much do they matter the answer could be anything from well a lot but not everything to not and cause has the extreme view that they matter not at all so he says here's how we go about evaluating half thing about a person with a certain character excellence the basis of certain motives what is an intention performs the action that action has the Republican wearing we start in thinking about whether the option is right or wrong well a virtue theorist says start with character a cut specialist says start with consequences look at what comes after the action and then work backwards a technologist is going to typically decide either on the basis of the character of the action itself like does it violate one of these rules or is going to say it's a question of what comes before the act comes up to that one at least in part it might also depend in part on the consequences but it depends at least part on something before the consequences well cause as I mentioned a moment ago is an extreme they apologies that is to say he thinks that the moral quality of the action does not dependent all the consequences we judge entirely by the agents intentions by what he calls the maxim which he defines as the subjective principle of religion why you're doing this thing we could say maybe be her reason for your action with only a slight fit I think distortion of his mean it is something like a rule that reflects the agents intention there's another bit of terminology we need to understand and apparently is something that is the command the expresses a man either in the form do or do not or with it off or should like you ought to do this we should not do that these could be hypothetical or they can be category a hypothetical imperative has a fit so it says you want to do this don't do that if you don't want blah blah and so there's an if clause and a hypothetical imperative but a categorical imperative doesn't have it simply do or do not do this don't do that there are no qualifications on when you're supposed to be doing this other conditions it's something you could say so now we have a tool and it should remind you of something right and that a hypothetical imperative tells you what what we doing under certain conditions a categorical imperative tells you what to want to be doing no matter what well that tells us something really really important a hypothetical imperative is something that depends on your circumstances your goals your desires and so tight for expressing your connection between means and ends it's a perfect way to talk about what we think in connection with qualify if something is a qualified wood and wood under certain conditions we can say great one or sit back wood under those yep you're in one of those conditions then you ought to pursue those goods so a qualified wood and a hypothetical parent go hand-in-hand but now it's just the opposite for categorical apparent those just they do or do not now shout about thought they're independent of goals of desires circumstances of anything in particular about view they apply University and notice they apply one qualified until actually we can always give somebody advice pursue that unqualified so what does that tell us it tells us something really really important about the nature of categorical imperatives there is one and only one unqualified would become namely have you good with so there's really only one categorical imperative and the most natural way to put it really in this language is to say you ought to have a good with now he never expresses it in exactly that form but I think that's the basic idea that ties all of his various formulations together there is one thing that's always you never know about having a good will so there's one thing but now what does that mean well the first thing it means is this a goodwill acts only on the basis of universal considerations so and the defects a always act on the basis of universal consideration you ought to act in other words on the basis of critical you shouldn't decide oh yeah I like that don't really like that iam in a bad mood but no you to be decided on the basis of general principles in fact universal principles principles that really exclude all of those subjective particular determinations and so here is his first formulation of the categorical error the one principle that he gives us the entire foundation for our act only on that Maxim you could at the same time with to be universal law some translations have it slightly differently act only on the maxim that you can will to become a universal law another way to put this is act as if everybody we're going to be acting on the basis of your max to put it negatively don't make an exception for yourself so-called at one point says what is the basis the true nature of amaura is it people acting according to the wrong rules he says no it's people acting according to the right rules but making an exception for the disciples so think about a thief these is somebody who is going to rob from other people does that feat himself think it's okay to rob him suppose you find out that somebody's had maybe one of your roommates the thief and he's been stashing the things and you steal what do you think the roommates reaction constantly is he gonna say hey you know I live by the rule take we won you to weigh you one minute probably not right the thief is not gonna want to be wrong the murderer is murder and they say you know and so instead what they do is make an exception for themselves and he says that's the great temptation to make an exception for your son and so the moral person doesn't do it there is a moral test underlying all of this here's the first thing you do to identify the mass so you basically say why are you doing what is really going on in your body is your reason what is this subjective principle vector and then we ask could it be a universal law sometimes as we'll see his answer is going to be done and then we can ask well if they could could I feel it to be a universal so not just is it possible that everyone can act on the basis of this but could I the rational being will that that happened and if the answer is no at any point then the action is impermissible so let's take a simple case should I steal something that I want what do I do well I start by saying what's my max maybe back from here if we steal take what you want be could that be a universal law could everyone go around stealing from everyone else his answer is no and it's sort of a clever argument he says here's why in a world where everybody just stole from everybody off there would be no such thing as property so there'd be nothing you could steal because nobody because the rule so stealing would be impossible so we conclude stealing is unjust and there was a cute little graphic there of a kid stealing an apple but didn't come through sad sets okay well I'm gonna just skip to his examples his key examples are these suicide talents promises and then charity so some of these are perfect obligations one where there's another person really another life do you're doing this and others are not some of them involve the self some involve other people so I'm gonna skip past that a little bit and just go straight to our first example this is an example actually the first disgusting suicide he said about his beard so I was both mad and built the easy case set of promises suppose somebody's forced by necessity to borrow money he knows he won't be able to repay it but sees nothing will be lent to him unless he promises stopping to repay it so he desires to make the promise but he has enough conscious tasks himself well yeah is it all unlawful in and consisted with duty to get out of trouble in this way suppose he resolves to do so then the maxim of the action would be expressed to this but I think I mean one of money I'll borrow it promise to repay it though I know I can never do it now this principle of self love who says might be consistent with my whole future welcome in other words I might go away but is it right and he says I put it as the universal law how would it be if my master for a university so my Maximus whatever money a borrower would promise to repay it even though I'm falsely promising suppose everybody were to do suppose that were to become a universal law could there be such a universal law he says no I see at once you could never hold is a universal law of nature it would contradict itself why well suppose it were a universal law but everybody of difficulty made these false promises our own money what would happen he says the promise itself would become impossible why because nobody would consider that anything was promised to would ridicule all such statements as they instances so suppose everybody which line about that who would load right suppose there were sister world everybody lies promised a pain back line I could say listen I you know I'm really hungry about nobody four or five dollars let's get back to you on Wednesday are you gonna give me the five dollars yeah problems right promises don't mean anything in such a world and so it becomes to act impossible actually commit to actually promise which makes promising is hot which makes false promise promising impossible so in the end contest look here's the max make false promises but if everybody did that there would be no such thing as promising so making false promises is unjust it is wrong we have a perfect obligation to keep our promises okay yes a lot an example where you could do this but nobody could will it let's look at the next example it gives about tablets hey you have an obligation to develop your products now suppose somebody finds himself a talent with good develop make him useful in many respects bodies comfortable preferred to indulge in pleasure rather than take pains to improve his happy natural capacities so yes whether this maxim of neglecting his natural gifts also agrees with what's called duty he sees a system of nature like this could subsist in with such a universal law right a sacrament yeah I'm just gonna I'm just going to be a slacker whatever buddy well that could happen he said could be like the South Sea Islander just which II abandons just you know a lot of around on the beach destroying themselves clearly never watched an episode of Survivor but anyway suppose we just did that so baby I'm just gonna go lie on the beach man that's that's why I like that so what everybody does that we all just say yeah screw we're all gonna get Escala by the beach now that could happen but could a rational being with now what would happen if we all decided to do we almost gave up whatever we were doing whatever we're working hard ass and said forget I'm just gonna go live yeah why it would sort of be purposeless there are the practical problems like at first you know you're just sitting there sipping a beer but imagine you run out of beer and we're and all the people who would otherwise brought you a beer so anyway yeah there are difficulties like that but the more fundamental difficulty is that as a rational being I will that my faculties be developed after all they serve me I am a being who is rational and in part that means I choose means to attain my ends and I value my ability to use my own ability to actually achieve my goals using those needs and so a rational being is somebody necessarily values rationality so slacking off is something that's going to actually contradict that which means that a life of Spring Breaks would really not work out very well for me and not it would not be a rational choice ignore that UT law horn player or here's another image of such a life okay at the end it doesn't really work out to be satisfying to a rational being so last time we were discussing the basic idea the thought past there is one only one well first and foremost acting with the basis of universal considerations that means the categorical imperative passed the clause and that one should act on the basis of universal consideration at the same time will to be the nurse'll law and last time we saw a couple of examples of that we discussed promising for example falsely or honestly we also talked about stealing he gives other examples for example charity he contemplating somebody who is looking at somebody who thinks hey I've got a pretty good eye to help other people should i what concern is the fun but everybody's happy as happy as heaven pleased as early as he can make himself and won't take anything from anybody or anything that person but neither do I wish to contribute to slaughter and he goes on to say what was this where's universal law remember the first part of the test identify the max so we've done to myself I'm gonna leave other people to look after themselves I'm not really gonna help them well he says the February universal law now here's the second part of our test is that something that would be ball of universes that everyone can follow and his answer is yes the human race might very well subsist to not miss even better then in a state in which everyone talks of sympathies with willory that takes care of taste way to put it into practice but on the other side also cheats when he can betrays the rights of man replies violence so in short he said yeah it could happen that everybody acts selfishly with a focus only on their own self-interest in fact such a world might be better than that kind of world in fact may be better than about world but nevertheless a central rational being couldn't build and that's the third part of the test could a rational being will such a world where everybody followed that he says well no it would be impossible to will that why over the resolve this would contradict itself it is much as many cases might occur in which one would have neither full of sympathy of others and in which by such a law of nature sprung from his own ruling which deprived himself of all it would be a desire some translation time insist he would often encounter situations that way there's no contradiction in that I could militant sets so let's take the case of the Good Samaritan who comes along by the person beaten on the side of the road should the Good Samaritan might be tempted like others to pass by nothing but he said well if everybody did that who is not helping someone you need yes they could on the other hand a rational be included will it well because that could be that vitamin I like need that love and sympathy about me and so the argument here is related to the Golden Rule and in general this version that the categorical imperative could be seen as a variance of Roman rule the golden rule says treat others as you want to be treated content like that formulation but because it seems to make it subject as you would want to be treated as if your subjective was desires or the relative thing he says it's really not that question of could you and that's a rational being will to be treated that way moreover because he's concerned about a system or policy of borrowing and lending other broad social practices it's not just what if that person did it to mean gosh you know to help us good to do the same if a loan officer well you know my producers I can be alone you know this type of thing that's what really relevant is what happens if everybody does that so you can see him as changing golden rule here in two layers one getting rid of subjective desires and plugging in one a fraction of the include bill but secondly if we think of it here we've got here in a property that's a weird and tricky argument and so that's really not great for practical tests and in fact often writing cautions disagree about what sympathy he gives us another formulation that is much easier to use and much easier to understand and it's a practical test based on that theoretical account here's the general lighting someone with good will backs out of respect for the moral law they act out of duty so they do the right thing for the right reason specifically is the right reason and that it is the right thing to do so they treat others as rational beings and here's what keep rats rational gives essentially value their own rational why we want to see that with respect to developing talent the idea is really that IMS irrational being somebody who values my ability to use means to attain my goals and that's what rationality is it's that ability to use various means to attain my goals what was the rationale behind value time so I value my own rationality so he says at one point rational nature exists is and they did itself I necessarily value my rationality but I can't do that just for myself I have to apply that universally so I have to respect rationality wherever it occurs so we can get out of this I ought to respect rational agents in general I ought to respect moral agents and so here's one way of putting this his framing of the thing is the last thing I gotta slide treat people is that never ate meat - humanity always intended its members over but a nice way of putting this is just what you have to respect you don't use meat and again it's not just human being you know he does use the term humanity here it really is question respecting all rational means respecting rationality and myself the respecting rationality in anyone well here's how he frames it more precisely axel you treat humanity whether in your own person with that or another always as an end and never really to me so I should never merely use myself or use another person for my event I've gotta treat everybody as about Ottoman or late I have to respect your right to make decisions that live your way you have to respect my authority and so we might think of this in the following sort of way if we apply it to these four cases let's talk about the states including you is this someone I make the problem that I know I could never repay I'm gonna sleep at night there's a puppy a sense in which I'm using you as a means developing my talents that's trickier because it involves self the idea here is I'm using myself my own life my own rationality purely for enjoyment I'm not giving my heart all those factors to rational agent I am not developing my own rationality so I'm not respected and the same thing is true in cases of charity if I don't help you when you're in need then actually I'm not giving you those factors rational agent now people have disputed whether that really makes sense he does say here after all there's a different sort of thing though obviously using you using you if I just passed you by on the side of the road after you've been beaten by the robbers life as a new case and in that case it's not so obvious that I'm using you but by walking by but I'm certainly not respecting the irrational ease after all you're in a position that you were invented right or hard by somebody else your rational agency would you want to restore home with an attack and so I have an obligation to help you do that I'm really not respecting the rationality about to be any interest I'm not directly using Yuliya syrup sense and yet from another point of view neither much only respect being your fellow rational agent so the practical test comes down to this he said I respect my own autonomy I have to respect your autonomy what does autonomy come to it's not just freedom it's my ability to set rules for myself so he says at one point the regulation imagined the legislature in a kingdom events kingdom events were all where we all treat one another is end to ourselves rather than means if I imagine myself setting means for that I'm included in that Kingdom and its enemies for life so in the end it says fears why morality because it's a pretty killer power it's not just the rules are being imposed on me from outside Hayek Senate leads to myself I am saying these are rules that I can't lettuce everyone who is part of this kingdom oh man and who might that kingdom of respect for other people's of totty indeed it's that that gives me bigoted why I'm not nearly good thing to be used why am i lot something than that Christ no I am something that has a big lead why because of that because of my um my ability to establish my own rules for my life and live according to the rules I set for myself well here's my build map for how all this goes we've got a good will is fundamental then that leads us to the formula the universal law you should act only on the maximum you can realize a universal law that leads us to the formula the law of nature after only our maximum you could realize the law of nature in other words really not choose to follow them they have to follow that leads us to this formula of humanity used to treat humanity and always an end in itself never as a means only that leads us to be active autonomy that means to decide the other Kingdom event and also I think that brings us back to the formula of universal law because I realized I'm legislating for the kingdom of ends I've really establishing the universal law for everyone and so all of these turn out to be equivalent ways of putting the same insight the same imperative which is I express it is essentially have a good will

Channel: Daniel Bonevac

Views: 8,429

Rating: 4.9230771 out of 5

Keywords: Immanuel Kant, Ethics, Categorical Imperative

Id: ISkoG8oCjTY

Length: 54min 6sec (3246 seconds)

Published: Fri Nov 11 2016