Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals | The Notion of Duty | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@eminyilmaz5807]

I'm pretty sure you are saving the lives of many students taking online Zoom classes through this pandemic. Your explanations are very clear and easy to understand. Thank you!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you find the videos helpful

[@stormsinger]

so thankful for you, and these videos! hopefully, you blow up! these colleges just have us doing busy work with essays since covid, there is currently no interactive learning for these topics and it is unlearnable to me by just reading the textbook. Thank You!

[@GregoryBSadler]

That's unfortunate. At this point, even profs who haven't previously taught online ought to have amped up their classes t make them more engaging

[@daniaestrada3537]

This was so helpful when writing a paper, great job professor.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful for you

[@LouFederer]

Awesome video. I love Kant and you discussed this topic excellently!

[@julesjgreig]

Thanks, Dr. Sadler!

[@tummster7]

YOUR THE BOMB.

[@thecelticgiraffe]

Thanks for another great and easy to understand video. Can you tell me what book you were looking at?

[@derekknochel7138]

at about 21:50 you said that Kant at a certain point just says "because you ought to" in response to why someone should follow the moral law. That sounds to me like there is a hole in his theory, and I don't imagine Kant would let there be a hole like that. It seems to me that there has to be some good reason for why we ought to revere something or why something would be our duty. I must be missing something, can you point me in the right direction?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Derek Knochel Yes, I said, at some point. . . After setting out a lot of other stuff. It's not a "hole" in a theory. You'll find every deontological theory eventually hitting some bedrock like that I've plenty of other videos you can watch. Or, there's Kant's text, which you can readily find online. Alternately, if you'd like to book me for a tutorial session, here's my site for that: reasonio.wordpress.com/

[@Gpmcconnell]

Great video- But one question that I have is: Immanuel Kant emphasizes “duty” as the factor that legitimizes the “moral worth” of an action. For Aristotle “moral virtue is the standard with regard to achieving the “good in action.” What is the difference between the two

[@benjaminle383]

Might be useful for you to research the differences between Deontology and Virtue Ethics as they both constitute a portion of Moral Ethics, alongside Consequentialism. I'm not sure exactly what the differences between them are, but one characteristic come to mind: "duties" provide more action-guidance, that is clearly-defined principles upon which one should act. Virtue Ethics, however, judge actions based upon questioning: would a virtuous person act in this way? Which is much less defined.

[@KushKussh]

So good. Like usual. Thanks 🤘💜

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@j0e14]

Thank you so much

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks! I've got some more coming down the pike

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome! It's the Patton translation of the Groundwork -- not necessarily the best one, just the one I happened to have handy!

[@GregoryBSadler]

new Core Concept video

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I've said this on other vids, when asked about translations -- I'm not a good judge, because I don't systematicaly compare them. I just use whatever I happen to have handy, because if need be, I can go to the source and read it in the original. That actually makes me kind of lazy, when you get down to it.

[@jelyanhehe6443]

Can I ask what is the difference of the motive duty from in accordance with duty

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's pretty much right there in the words, right?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well. . . I did use to have a short fuse. . . .

[@bashermans7130]

Hello Gregory, which book are you holding and using for this lecture?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Says it right there in the video description

[@tpiriyan8961]

Prof Sadler, thank you for your videos; they are exremely good. What's the text you recommend that we read to follow you better?

[@GregoryBSadler]

For this one, Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

[@gebatron604]

How can you tell if a maxim is good?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Keep reading -- or watch the other Core Concept videos. That's where that gets covered

[@gebatron604]

Yeah, I think I may have jumped to the question too soon I think the answer is that if a maxim is good, then it will be rational. if it is rational, then the same maxim can be accepted by all other rational beings. Thus, universality. I don't know if I'm right, but I'll get it eventually. Thanks for the videos, they're incredibly useful!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Guy Potts You're welcome. Glad they're helpful!

[@BarbaraBrasileiro]

That's interesting, because you can think about some religious thoughts that some people have (I know I did): I'm gonna do good things so I go to a good place after I die. According to Kant that's not a very good motive. We should be acting like that for the sake of acting like that because it's the right thing to do. Well, that's something that sounds almost a little crazy to say nowadays lol can we really be that selfless and not act because of other interests and just for the sake of doing the right thing?... Let's see... I'll keep watching...

[@franbatista9062]

Exatamente, mas Kant critica uma religião em concreto, porque não seguem os valores morais.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You just summed up one difference: duty instead of virtue.

[@robertcoltrane7008]

Helpful thank you.

[@fullmontyX]

From what i understood about "the good" is that happiness is the result of achieving the good, but in respect to the good will you are performing an action simply because it is the right thing to do and you have the duty to do such. This may or not bring about happiness. Say for example that you are going through a divorce with children involved and it is apparent that your spouse is a better mother than you are a father. You would have a duty to give the mother custody but this will leave you feeling miserable.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Happiness, for Kant, is the satisfaction of our desires and inclinations - so it might or might not be the result of achieving the good -- since the only unqualifiedly good thing, in his view, is the good will

[@jacovichstabs841]

Thanks for this video, I've been trying to understand Kant's moral system for a while and your explanation of duty really gets to the bottom of it. Suffice to say I completely disagree with Kant, but at least I don't have a straw man of his position in my head like I had been worried.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Good - that's what matters most, getting the positions right. Whether you agree or disagree, that comes after

[@loganmackenzie6421]

I'm so glad I'm going into the feild with more technology than chalk. I would entirely lose my train of thought while writing on the board, I need PowerPoints all day for every day.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Good luck with that

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, to start off, if you mean for this to in any way be engaging Kant and his views on duty, you're not going to be able to do that by simply rolling out a whole bunch of statements like that -- and this is a Kant video, after all. Second, One can certainly perform an action without a law of the nature or the universe requiring us to -- otherwise we could not go against such a law. It's unclear what you're aiming at here -- expressing your views? engaging Kant? engaging in dialogue?

[@GregoryBSadler]

So, you want to understand "duty" to mean something like in accordance with a law of nature. You're quite free to give "duty" whatever sense you like, but if you give it one that doesn't allow much dialogue with other moral theories -- for instance, by just making assertions of this sort -- I'm not sure what you mean to do with all this. I'm sure this seems to all make sense as a system to you, but frankly, it's rather confusing. Perhaps better to write it all down than to post it here

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, you asked, so: This is wrong.

[@lilyguo6058]

Maybe you could shorten the introduction a little.

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mJ2Uf6xtbNKeiNk