Criticisms of Kantian Ethics

[@princealy4570]

The drawing of the brain scanner is mind blowing!

[@fergsacademia2104]

This is genuinely amazing content. The time and effort put into these videos will endure the test of time and will eventually gain the recognition they deserve!

[@Xnakee75]

great vid. writing a last min essay. it helped me so much

[@abhishalsharma1628]

14:05 Sir, can't we better phrase it: Acting on the ground, morality is emotional. But what we're forgetting here is that Ethics is a normative study. Thus, although morality is emotional while acting on the ground, ideally it *ought to be logical* .

[@Me-rf6ci]

OMG you don't know how much it helped me for the exams and my knowledge. Thank you so much!

[@BalHatase]

Sometimes also the Kantian proofs are just to simple and there are extremely complex real life situations where they simply crash

[@pythonanywhere3392]

If you're thinking it's moral to keep yourself healthy by running, this isn't moral because people in wheelchairs or born without legs can't do this. Therefore we ought to sit down because we all can and we aren't respecting the autonomy of the disabled? According to strict Kantian ethics this is so. I think that's a problem with these ethical universalisms. People are night and day all different. To apply a universal set of ethics is downright unnatural and antithetical to reality.

[@matiastrujillo7062]

I think you might be getting confuse with the hypothetical imperatives. The maxim you are describing can be written "If you want to keep yourself healthy, run". So if you don't want to keep yourself healthy, you are not being unmoral. Now, if you really are talking about making that maxim a categorical imperative ("Stay healthy by running"), then I don't see how can that be a moral action (it woludn't make sense to apply the first categorical and ask myself "do I like that people stay healthy by running?")

[@samhangster]

@python anywhere you're mistaken. Kantian logic is flawless

[@goldfish6757]

really useful video! also to add to the morality is emotional thing, i really don’t think there’s anything rational about morality. i get that it’s our duty to be moral but why? what reason do we have to act morally and in accordance with our duty? i also don’t think immorality is that rational either, i just think the entire concept of ethics can’t be thoroughly explained by logic and rationality. i might be wrong though, so if anyone can explain the reason we should be moral (without saying because it’s the right thing to do) that would be really interesting!

[@hanarielgodlike9283]

Kinda late to the party but i'll try to answer. The answer is on your very question: "anyone can explain the reason we should be moral?" Morality is all about "Why Should I?" its how our human minds thinks. you are already excersising morality by asking this question even without knowing it... Even if morality is just a emotional thing, that is no reason to disconsider it. Why do you eat? Because you dont want to starve to death... is just a emotional thing, but that doesn`t mean you should`t eat. If you began to disconsider everything because its an emotional thing, you will eventually come to the conclusion that live isn't worth living. Because thats what human experience is all about, emotions, All of it. And kant knew that, you can see he worded his imperative in a way that emotions play a part on it "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time _will that it_ become a universal law.”

[@xalpaca8193]

thank you so much this helped me with my term paper

[@TheCRancourt]

1. There is a difference between the categorical imperative itself and maxims, the subjective rules implied by action. Where does Kant say that a maxim cannot start with; when a (any) man is in situation X...? Kant's examples of how to apply the CI involve people in situations, such as the guy who needs money and knows he can't pay back a loan asking for it anyway. 2. We engage in emotional reasoning. There is a difference between descriptive and normative statements, between statements of is and ought. I don't think Greene is taking this into account. Just because what we in fact do often does not come from reason does not mean that it ought not to. Here is another perspective in the critical section at the end. kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHq2mqBpYrOUY8k

[@danielnunez3206]

Thumbs up for the brain scanner!

[@Deasy782]

Can some one explain to me how "steal when can" and "kill when not risky" does not meet the requirements of the categorical imperative? The involvement of stealing and killing would not meet the initial requirement of living in a world where this is allowed. As soon as you asked the question...you would come to the conclusion "no, because i do not wish to live in a world where stealing or killing is allowed"

[@fernzchubs6275]

One year late but Kant said that if we universalised stealing it would be impossible due to being that the purpose of 'ownership' would be gone. If killing was universalised, you would be the last person on earth, thus logically saying that you cannot kill

[@wouldbfarmer2227]

Pure extasyy. I couldn't control myself. had to call in the cleanup crew. What a mess I made

[@hugobch6288]

Helped so much I think this will get me up to a B

[@jacobhalperin8167]

Great video keep it up

[@TheCogito]

Thanks, will do!

[@samhangster]

Also, Kant would not necessarily disagree with the intuitive trolly problem answer which is to switch the rail. Further, the 2nd scenario of the trolly problem regarding pushing someone off the bridge is hard for me to wrap my head around with respect to the scenario. I don't think that a circumstance like that is possible, that a person would be able to stop a moving train, or that it would necessarily be knowable to me at any time in any case of the like that if I push the man that the train would not hit the 5 people.

[@Xnakee75]

its just a scenario to prove a point relax

[@samhangster]

@@Xnakee75 yes, and it fails given Kants logic and is falsely misrepresented

[@Lefthandup]

Ur wrong

[@samhangster]

@@Lefthandup how so

[@FilmFiend]

@Kool_Kat The trolly problem is a metaphor for action that begs questions such as is it morally worse to stand by idle and let 5 peopel die or peronally through my own action take the life of 1 person to save 5. Its to apply general rules of action to hypothetical situations to push those beliefs to their limit and see if they hold up.

[@harrydvs114]

fantastic video

[@TheCogito]

Thank you! 😃

[@samhangster]

The Steal when you can example was illogical. If the rule was for people to steal when you can, everyone is techincally able, and can, to steal at any moment, and thus reverts back to the "steal" imperitive which is bad and contradictory so obviously can't be true. Same goes for kill when it isn't risky. Making this principle an imperitive would have the same consequences as accepting the "kill" imperitive, for the simple reason that, if it was true and moral for everyone to kill when it isn't risky, then the concept of risk would disappear, since once two people started killing each other the concept of risk would not be there so anyone around them woudl start fighting too spreading outwards. Additionally, the concept of risk is not well defined.

[@samhangster]

@@jahses6751 I disagree, especially because the point made in attempt to exemplify it failed. Nader

[@blendabeatz6674]

10/10 content

[@TheCogito]

Thank you!

[@atSeifer]

Great effort in the video, however, this video is very flawed. There's four accepted categorical imperatives: 1. The Formula of Universal Law 2. The Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself 3. The Formula of Autonomy 4. The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends That is also not the correct context of the man at the door contention. It was about "lying" which violates the formula of autonomy. However as this is seemingly a contention it's really not as there's permittance in the ethical framework on action is taken as a moral duty. It could be a moral duty to lie to someone who means harm, like there's a moral duty to kill someone in war if it's premised That it's out of duty to protect others

[@cece873]

thank you so much for this!

[@AmazePaulz]

This vid is particularly bad because its designer made it LONGER.. LET me just write that with a mouse.. So he can get MORE ADVERTS... a little bit disingenuous, yea? ... So to recap.. This video ... (writes it in a box with a mouse) Is against kant

[@Deasy782]

I'll attribute it to the fact that he's a teacher and not a youtuber. This video was created for a class, so an instructor might have the preference of writing his/her thoughts vs typing.

[@denizcanbay6312]

I wonder instead of fat man, a child, a woman or any relatives, or you are the fat man on the bridge and the Question is killing yourself to save others or letting them die. I would argue not actively choosing is also a choice and it's not different.

[@remysanders9030]

great content

[@titoflash1212]

Thx a lot!

[@demergent_deist]

Kant's ethics has definitely shortcomings. Here you find the improvement of his thought: spirit-salamander.blogspot.com/2023/05/completing-kants-ethical-approach.html

[@pauladebayo8254]

great video