Basic Introduction to Kant’s Moral Philosophy

Almost every ethics class in college will go over Immanuel Kant and his moral philosophy. Unfortunately, reading Kant can be quite difficult with his terminology and dense writing. Don't be fooled by the size of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, it is packed and every sentence matters.
This video explores the preface of the book and Kant's essay "On the Supposed Right to Lie for Philanthropic Concerns." A big theme in both of these works is Kant's desire for universality. Metaphysics, for Kant, are based on a priori principles, not empiricism. Therefore he's looking for something necessary and universal, something that will be right regardless of time and space. A metaphysics of morals, therefore, would need to disconnect itself from empiricism and find it's grounding in a priori reasoning.
We see this importance of universality in the famous axe murderer thought experiment. If you hide a friend running away from an axe murderer, but that axe murderer comes to your house and asks you where your friend is, should you tell him the truth? For Kant, yes, universality means we can't be context dependent and allow for exceptions. Therefore, we must tell the truth, even when risking harm to ourself or others.
#philosophy #ethics #moral
Instagram: amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@PhilosophyToons]

ANNONCEMENT!!! Unbeknownst to me I uploaded this on Kant's actual birthday, April 22. I swear this wasn't planned this is purely coincidental.

[@Wahid_4770]

Wow, looks like you've unknowingly achieved a categorical imperative to post a joke on Kant's birthday! Must be a transcendental sign from the universe...

[@Wahid_4770]

the only thing noumenal about my humor is its existence outside the realm of understanding. At least my joke is a priori funny (to absolutely no one).😅

[@silverswordstudios7334]

Since you’ve gotten started with Kant, please continue with him, but I would absolutely love to see a continuation of utilitarianism afterwards.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Will do!

[@maxmontague6717]

I would love a continuation of utilitarianism afterward, but I think you should continue with Kant since he's one of the most important philosophers but is also sometimes misunderstood (doesn't help that his writing can be quite dense). Also, thank you for mentioning his later "Metaphysics of Morals". I think it's important for better understanding Kant's ethics and most people who know of Kant don't even know it exists.

[@TheKing-qz9wd]

With this my appreciation of Kant has grown a little.

[@Wahid_4770]

Great video🎉 It reminds me of the story of the king of Ayodhya. Harishchandra was known to keep his promise and words. He never left the path of truth. Harishchandra gave away his kingdom, sold his family, and agreed to be a slave - all to fulfill a promise he had made to the sage Vishvamitra.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Was it worth it for him?

[@Wahid_4770]

@@PhilosophyToons Indeed, The sage then officially stated, in front of all present there, that Harishchandra had indeed won the challenge and that he would give back all the wealth and power, and also half of all the grace that he had earned in his lifetime of penance. The angels showered flowers on the king and his family, also returning him to his kingdom. All his suffering turned out to be a blessing in disguise, as the world had been witness to the true power of his truthfulness and virtue.

[@ns1extreme]

Kant for me. Also I never understood why you can't just tell the murderer that you don't want to tell him anything. But I guess that would ruin the thought experiment.

[@baiterfish7901]

While I like boy Mill and Kant, Kant is way more difficult to understand so I'd rather keep having you explain it

[@PhilosophyToons]

I'll do my best!

[@ourdivinemouseoverlord3308]

I think I would prefer more on Kant, but it's ultimately up to you to decide.

[@PhilosophyToons]

I'll take that into account

[@zruss0]

i love your work on this channel! whether it’s this, going back to utilitarianism, or going with something else, i’ll be interested!

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thank you!

[@4vn14]

Kant! Definitely Kant.

[@milmanworkshop5854]

continue with kant pls

[@christopherrosica9001]

Go with kant

[@nurfuis]

I Kant decide.

[@derekaleman1921]

more kant videos !!

[@Stacee-jx1yz]

Ethical theories have long grappled with tensions between deontological frameworks focused on inviolable rules/duties and consequentialist frameworks emphasizing maximizing good outcomes. This dichotomy is increasingly strained in navigating complex real-world ethical dilemmas. The both/and logic of the monadological framework offers a way to transcend this binary in a more nuanced and context-sensitive ethical model. Deontology vs. Consequentialism Classical ethical theories tend to bifurcate into two opposed camps - deontological theories derived from rationally legislated moral rules, duties and inviolable constraints (e.g. Kantian ethics, divine command theory) and consequentialist theories based solely on maximizing beneficial outcomes (e.g. utilitarianism, ethical egoism). While each perspective has merits, taken in absolute isolation they face insurmountable paradoxes. Deontological injunctions can demand egregiously suboptimal outcomes. Consequentialist calculations can justify heinous acts given particular circumstances. Binary adherence to either pole alone is intuitively and practically unsatisfying. The both/and logic, however, allows formulating integrated ethical frameworks that cohere and synthesize deontological and consequentialist virtues using its multivalent structure: Truth(inviolable moral duty) = 0.7 Truth(maximizing good consequences) = 0.6 ○(duty, consequences) = 0.5 Here an ethical act is modeled as partially satisfying both rule-based deontological constraints and outcome-based consequentialist aims with a moderate degree of overall coherence between them. The synthesis operator ⊕ allows formulating higher-order syncretic ethical principles conjoining these poles: core moral duties ⊕ nobility of intended consequences = ethical action This models ethical acts as creative synergies between respecting rationally grounded duties and promoting beneficent utility, not merely either/or. The holistic contradiction principle further yields nuanced guidance on how to intelligently adjudicate conflicts between duties and consequences: inviolable duty ⇒ implicit consequential contradictions requiring revision pure consequentialism ⇒ realization of substantive moral constraints So pure deontology implicates consequentialist contradictions that may demand flexible re-interpretation. And pure consequentialism also implicates the reality of inviolable moral side-constraints on what can count as good outcomes. Virtue Ethics and Agent-Based Frameworks Another polarity in ethical theory is between impartial, codified systems of rules/utilities and more context-sensitive ethics grounded in virtues, character and the narrative identities of moral agents. Both/and logic allows an elegant bridging. We could model an ethical decision with: Truth(universal impartial duties) = 0.5 Truth(contextualized virtuous intention) = 0.6 ○(impartial rules, contextualized virtues) = 0.7 This captures the reality that impartial moral laws and agent-based virtuous phronesis are interwoven in the most coherent ethical actions, neither pole is fully separable. The synthesis operation clarifies this relationship: universal ethical principles ⊕ situated wise judgment = virtuous act Allowing that impartial codified duties and situationally appropriate virtuous discernment are indeed two indissociable aspectsof the same integrated ethical reality, coconstituted in virtuous actions. Furthermore, the holistic contradiction principle allows formally registering howvirtuous ethical character always already implicates commitments to overarching moral norms, and vice versa: virtuous ethical exemplar ⇒ implicit universal moral grounds impartially legislated ethical norms ⇒ demand for contextual phronesis So virtue already depends on grounding impartial principles, and impartial principles require contextual discernment to be realized - a reciprocal integration. From this both/and logic perspective, the most coherent ethics embraces and creative synergy between universal moral laws and situated virtuous judgment, rather than fruitlessly pitting them against each other. It's about artfully realizing the complementary unity between codified duty and concrete ethical discernment approprate to the dynamic circumstances of lived ethical life. Ethical Particularism and Graded Properties The both/and logic further allows modeling more fine-grained context-sensitive conceptualizations of ethical properties like goodness or rightness as intrinsically graded rather than binary all-or-nothing properties. We could have an analysis like: Truth(action is fully right/good) = 0.2 Truth(action is partially right/good) = 0.7 ○(fully good, partially good) = 0.8 This captures a particularist moral realism where ethical evaluations are multivalent - most real ethical acts exhibit moderate degrees of goodness/rightness relative to the specifics of the context, rather than being definitively absolutely good/right or not at all. The synthesis operator allows representing how overall evaluations of an act arise through integrating its diverse context-specific ethical properties: act's virtuous intentions ⊕ its unintended harms = overall moral status Providing a synthetic whole capturing the multifaceted, both positive and negative, complementary aspects that must be grasped together to discern the full ethical character of a real-world act or decision. Furthermore, the holistic contradiction principle models how ethical absolutist binary judgments already implicate graded particularist realities, and vice versa: absolutist judgment fully right/wrong ⇒ multiplicity of relevant graded considerations particularist ethical evaluation ⇒ underlying rationally grounded binaries Showing how absolutist binary and particularist graded perspectives are inherently coconstituted - with neither pole capable of absolutely eliminating or subsuming the other within a reductive ethical framework. In summary, the both/and logic and monadological framework provide powerful tools for developing a more nuanced, integrated and holistically adequate ethical model by: 1) Synthesizing deontological and consequentialist moral theories 2) Bridging impartial codified duties and context-sensitive virtues 3) Enabling particularist graded evaluations of ethical properties 4) Formalizing coconstitutive relationships between ostensible poles Rather than forcing ethical reasoning into bifurcating absolutist/relativist camps, both/and logic allows developing a coherent pluralistic model that artfully negotiates and synthesizes the complementary demands and insights from across the ethical landscape. Its ability to rationally register both universal moral laws and concrete contextual solicitations in adjudicating real-world ethical dilemmas is its key strength. By reflecting the intrinsically pluralistic and graded nature of ethical reality directly into its symbolic operations, the monadological framework catalyzes an expansive new paradigm for developing dynamically adequate ethical theories befitting the nuances and complexities of lived moral experience. An ethical holism replacing modernity's binary incoherencies with a wisely integrated ethical pragmatism for the 21st century.

[@user-eq5um8kg4e]

The midwives lied to Pharaoh about keeping babies from being tossed into the Nile. If it wasn’t for their lies, Moses would have never existed.

[@PhilosophyToons]

You're right about that

[@reddykilowatt]

and look at the war today that could have been avoided. oops!

[@patrickreilly948]

I am greedy, both, + more

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

The truth is a virtue and virtues make us pay their use with suffering of one type or another. Kants position however would destroy the concept of wisdom and seriously limit reason. Reason lies, if there is valid reason to lie. Wisdom lies more frequently, including with attitude. Morals might have truth as a law, but to survive morals have to be wise. Wisdom is a higher moral imperative than the law of truth, and the reason is that wisdom might promise survival while with truth there can be, in cerrain instances, demise and/or loss. You have to be wise with the virtues, including with truth.

[@StrangeCornersOfThought]

Too bad you Kant bring him back to life. 🤣

[@PhilosophyToons]

:(