Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for Metaphysics of Morals | The Good Will | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@brooklynbeach2002]

10 years later & this video is still helping phil students. Thank you!!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@jacibarney1]

I love the shorter more personalize clips. Thank you for taking the time to provide a way for me to understand Kant. It has really made a difference in my studies.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Jaci Barney Glad that the Core Concept videos have been useful for you

[@jordanhaycock629]

You're so great man! I have been struggling in Philosophy class understanding the text and you've helped so much! Thank you :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the videos have been helpful!

[@guinthehouse]

Wow great!!! I read the text understand a little bit, read a sumary online, understood motr and I finally think I understood majority of it after watching this video! Thank you!! I have found my clarity

[@EvaCookie]

I have a class about Kant and especially the Groundwork for metaphysics and your videos are the best way to do my revision for my exams. They are really helpful! Thank you very much! Eva, Greece

[@Lamilives]

hello professor, I'm a PhD student and you just saved me hours of confusion and helped me understand Kant's view on moral virtuousness, my thesis is on virtue ethics marketing and your videos help immensely , God bless you.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad that the videos have been helpful for you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome. I'm glad they're useful for exam study

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- glad it helped out. It is a tricky topic, to be sure

[@GregoryBSadler]

a new Core Concept video on a key idea in Kant's Groundwork

[@REVOLUTlONARY]

I am a philosophy major at Michigan State University and I have experienced particular difficulty understanding the crux of Kant's argument regarding morality and the good will. This video, as well as the the subsequent videos have really helped me in understanding exactly what it is that Kant is trying to say. Thank you so much and keep up the good work!

[@BrittanyMaxwell23]

Good info, thanks! I've found Kant to be difficult to comprehend, so this really helped.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Brittany M Glad it was useful for you

[@Sonicspeed3000]

Just read Bertrand Russell's chapter on Kant in his History of Philosophy. His philosophy can be very challenging at times, these videos are helping me make sense of things Dr. Sadler.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad they're helpful

[@ehabmes]

What text book do you recommend for reading about Critical Thinking?

[@czabeats2964]

Reading Kant for class really enjoy it. His writings can be hard for me so this video helped. thank you. I think the difficulty in Kant's "The Metaphysics of Morals" is the sentence structure. There are many many commas and it forces you to focus. Also, he uses big words and it is a translation.

[@GregoryBSadler]

He also has his own terminology

[@GregoryBSadler]

well, you probably don't want to focus on Kant videos and texts then, but rather on criticisms of Kant. Check out John Stuart Mill for a utilitarian critique, or W.D. Ross for an intuitionist/deontological critique

[@Borboletanena]

Great explanation! I was able to understand you better than my professor!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, looking at what I've got on my shelves at present, I'd say offhand that, of the textbooks I've been provided for review, I've liked these three, and would consider using them: Critical Thinking: An Introduction to the basic Skills by William Hughes, et al. Critical Thinking, by Richard Epstein, et al. Argumentation and Debate: Critical Thinking for Reasoned Decision Making, by Austing Freely, et al.

[@melesseabere29]

professor it is the first time to watch your videos, thanks a lot .the are my ways to philosophy

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad the videos are useful for you

[@jvolstad]

I'm a senior citizen student at my local Community College. Philosophy has been very interesting.

[@GregoryBSadler]

That good

[@SeaFeezle]

Thank you! This helped clarify the text for me.

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- glad it was helpful for you!

[@andzuo]

I'm so grateful of you sir. It is very well explained 💓😍

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@SrbijaCG]

I think you did an excellent job explaining the good will. But you said that "duty embodies the good will". When I read _Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals_ I understood that "duty" doesn't "simply embody the good will" rather it is (according to Kant) a *requirement* to of man to follow, as opposed to an animals which aren't because they aren't imprisoned by morals. Am I wrong here? If so, please explain.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's both. Give it a few more rereads. Been studying and teaching this stuff a couple decades now

[@rageface101]

Great video, helped me review for an ethics class!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful. . . .

[@ceceliakwan1111]

on the rejection that happiness is unconditionally good: so to clarify, Kant rejects happiness as a primal good because you may have gotten happiness from numerous things and it may be undeserving or you may be spoiled? for ex. if someone gave me stolen jewelry for me (I am unaware of the stealing), I would feel happy from it but the way in which I received the jewelry was the result of something bad. And because it was a result of something bad, this demonstrates a case in which happiness cannot be the primal good? Am I understanding this correctly?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No idea what a "primal good" means here. That's not a Kantian term. Kant's take on happiness is pretty straightforward, and you can find it in the text and in some of the other videos I produced on it

[@ceceliakwan1111]

@@GregoryBSadler I got the term "primal good" for when you used it at 4:10 when you said "talents of mind are not going to be the ultimate good or the primal good."

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@ceceliakwan1111 That would be primary. You're really going to want to read the text

[@GregoryBSadler]

Tough to say -- never found a CT textbook that I've liked in all respects. I'd say get a few -- don't buy them, since you can usually find some in libraries -- and then compare them on the various topics. In the core stuff -- fallacies, what an argument is, etc., they ought to be more or less on the same page. They'll differ in other respects

[@JonathanB00K3R]

Could you do a series of videos on his critique of pure and practical reason :)?

[@GregoryBSadler]

+JonathanB00K3R I've no plans to do that in the near future, since I've already got so many other project underway at present. If you'd like to commission me to put some of those on hold, and focus on creating videos on the first two critiques, you can email me at [e-mail], and I'll send you my rates

[@JonathanB00K3R]

+Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for getting back to me.

[@vc7020]

When you are speaking about "motive" could another word for it be the "maxim"? My professor is using this word and its causing me confusion?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I wouldn't simply substitute them. A maxim is a rule for action, and generally includes the general motive for the action

[@jockt967]

Thank you so much for all your excellent videos. I’m reminded of the concept of “Rational Wish” by Aristotle. Professor, do you believe Kant’s idea the Good Will to fulfill a Duty is similar to Aristotle’s “Rational Wish”?

[@eugenemay7283]

Professor I have a questions. Is it possible that people have missed the mark, when it comes to Immanuel Kant's work? I can only speak about two of his works. First there is, Fundamental principles of the Metaphysics of morals. Second, The critique of practical reason. The first book, to me. Is a step by step guide to a higher level of understanding. If that is the case. How would breaking it down to its smaller parts, the way it is being done help? The second book, again I speak only as I understand it. Because people did not understand the first book. The second book is the foundation, for the first. Once the second book is understood, you are to return to the first. Did you know God said he was the creator of all things? If God created all things, would that include the Big bang? I know it includes the truth of these two works.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The Grundlegung (translatable as "groundwork" or "foundation") is not the book preparatory to the Second Critique (i.e. of Practical Reason). It is quite literally the Groundwork to the "Metaphysics of Morals," which is in fact a book on its own. One engages in analysis preparatory to synthesis quite frequently when trying to understand something difficult -- why should that be a problem here?

[@zakmatew]

The main questions are what is "will"? Where does it reside? What does it look like? What causes the "will"? What is a "motive"? Same questions above apply to this as well.

[@GregoryBSadler]

+Zak Matew Sounds like you could use a 1-on-1 tutorial session. Here's my site for that: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@Twinish03]

I don't have any idea how to counter argue that good will is the ultimate good! gosh I hate analysis paper :(

[@jacobmoloney4392]

mate this was really helpful thanks heaps.

[@GregoryBSadler]

glad to read it!

[@Suavestmanalive]

I keep hearing the word "faculty" being used in Kant's work. What is an example of a faculty? Is it something like courage, honor, honesty? Or something like the ability to reason?

[@fraunkp4650]

kant's work in regards to understanding is based on "faculties", as in a humans understanding of their person and place in regards to their exterior environment. its covered in his critique of pure reason. He moves through the systemics of our ability to trust our senses in what we observe but still doubt the observation in itself, which os then covered by his crit of judgement, but this is a more controversial strain of kantian phil due to the assumptions regarding a true or inheritable "good", which is always debatable in current methodology

[@Suavestmanalive]

So from your first sentence, I'm thinking reason would be considered a faculty

[@GregoryBSadler]

Suavestmanalive Yes, reason is a faculty for Kant. The imagination would be another. Desire is yet another. Here's a google search on "Kant" and "faculty" www.google.com/search?as_q=kant+faculties&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl

[@marinariad1986]

Thanks for the video but I have a question, can you tell me an example of your own choosing of a moral problem and apply Kant's idea of good will to it, so as to illustrate the practical implications of Kant's idea?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I've done that in other Kant videos. There's actually a Kant playlist you can look through

[@garundip.mcgrundy8311]

I've studied and taught philosophy since the middle 1970s... and, yet, I still don't understand it. Here, I pose as a post-modern millennial just to get a pass to the next lesson... I view your videos as an introduction to any new studies I might explore. Kant is almost always impossible to follow. Thax! A Hat Tip! Oh yeah, I like F.A. Schaeffer's take on Kant and the "moderns." Ever read him? Also, where does Schopenhauer come in? Remember, Schopenhauer emphasized Idea and "Will"... as a kind of "dichotomy." Oh yeah, "why all the dichotomies in philosophy?" Schaeffer says, "That which is placed in the lower consumes the upper." Why is this so?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Garundi P. McGrundy Hahaha! I usually tell my students that the biggest issue with Kant is his use of all sorts of jargon, a good bit of which he coins himself. I haven't read Schaeffer, no. . .

[@nahimsaifi4142]

Sir can u give the written material

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYTRqamkp6h7gtk

[@HillardEarl]

Professor I am from down the hall. The things you covered here confused me. Most of your stuff on Kant confuses me. The video ended sounding like you gave duty, the place of dignity. I may be mistaken, I did not find part two of this video. On my Kindle pages 91 & 92, the hold bottom paragraph is just to say dignity is greater than duty. The three things are goodwill, dignity and the kingdom of ends. The term, Kingdom of ends, Kant is credited for. If he understood what he meant by " kingdom of ends" . How can it be that he misunderstood so much. For me the term Kingdom of ends, protects Kant from a lot of your videos. The video opening statement loss me. I think you went left, the term "without qualification" , is once you pick something, the term goodwill is to be removed. The thing you pick can be removed from a goodwill, but a goodwill can't be removed from the thing you picked.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, I'm doing pretty straightforward Kant-interpretation here. If my stuff on Kant just confuses you -- not the case for most of the viewers -- I'd look for some other videos on Kant then, which might be more helpful for you

[@monalisasmile6129]

is Good Will valid today?

[@GregoryBSadler]

As Kant understands it, it would be valid at all times

[@Lukvancer]

I don't get it. I stopped at the first argument. You talk about "Wit" but shouldn't you dismiss "good Witt" instead? Can "Good wit" be totally good?

[@GregoryBSadler]

LUKVANCE Kant would say no, just like all the other things that aren't the good will itself. If you're confused about this, and would like 1-on-1 help, I'd suggest going to my "Tutorials" page on the ReasonIO.com website

[@Lukvancer]

Gregory B. Sadler Thank you for your link, I'll look into it. Would you care to share an example, like in the video, where good wit is not good? Thus proving that it cannor be totally good.

[@GregoryBSadler]

funny bullying

[@Lukvancer]

Bullying implies the hurt of others thus making it not good. How could funny bullying be "GOOD wit" ? Are you sure of your answer? For me it is bad witt doing so.

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm sure of my answer. Again, if you want a discussion about this on a free resource that's pretty straightforward, I'll do a tutorial with you.

[@asmitachatterjee2428]

Hellow I am a philosophy masters student from India

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hello. I am a philosophy professor here in the USA

[@DanyIsDeadChannel313]

I love your channel despite you having a Catholic taste in books and philosophers

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, though you mean lower case "c" catholic, I think

[@劉安安妮]

Motivation , I presume , according to Harvard's justice with Michael Sandel, is to judge a man moral or not moral. As to cope with chaos traffics in Taiwan, accidents murder thousands of people in Taiwan, the government can't just pretend to be non guilty by excusing natural causes.

[@GregoryBSadler]

This is about Kant, not Sandel

[@skepticalgenious]

It seems to me kant attempts to use process of elimination to find what he believes to be correct. Insead of declaring this is how it is. He breaks it down. Example goodwill with bad intentions is not ideally good therefore that does not fit for what is good morally. I appreciate this sort of thinking. I also appreciate the declarative form but find myself questioning it. Such as Rudolph Steiner. He state's this is how it is. Full stop. With no wiggle room for the audiences to disagree. Now I understand Steiner and his work are polar opposites from kant.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Strange you’d go from Kant to Steiner.

[@zxcel8359]

noice

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's nice to have a good will

[@unbalancedlibra9788]

666 likes

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

Kant always strikes me a deeply rational and disturbingly evil person.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Why? That's a very strange position of you to hold

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

​@@GregoryBSadler Because he has a way of bypassing your own rationality and explain to you why you should be sacrificing your life to what he considers is a good idea. Even in your presentation 'Good Will' is anything he decides on and you can frame it in any way he likes.

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@JonathanLevinTKY Nah. You've got it wrong there. I'd suggest abandoning or bracketing the rather paranoid assumptions and giving it a read with fresh eyes. It's possible to criticize and disagree with Kant - I think he's wrong myself on quite a few counts - without taking that path you've chosen to adopt.

[@JonathanLevinTKY]

@@GregoryBSadler Thanks for the advice. I studied Kant to some degree and I am also an objectivist. So while I may now hold a particular view on him, it is based on some research.

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@JonathanLevinTKY Nah. If you're a Randian Objectivist, you're relying on her pretty awful misreadings of the history of philosophy. Reading Rand isn't doing "research".