Immanuel Kant, Groundwork | The 1st Formulation of Categorical Imperative | Philosophy Core Concepts

[@jenishaupreti7889]

a very useful video , the 'what is Kant not saying?' part of this lecture made his imperative more visible. thank you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Good!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome -- glad you liked it

[@GregoryBSadler]

Hahaha! I've been reading Kant for years, and I've had precisely that feeling at quite a few points -- that there's some gap in his explanations, particularly with respect to key ideas -- desire, for example. All gentle joking around aside, I'm planning on getting to the theoretical philosophy, but unfortunately, not right away. I'm producing these Core Concept videos for a variety of audiences, but especially for my current students -- so Ethics stuff is where the main focus is right now

[@GregoryBSadler]

Dali? Probably not. If you'd like to see who I'm interested in, perhaps you might look at my other videos -- I've an entire playlist devoted to Kierkegaard, btw -- or my blogs. Easy enough to get to from my channel

[@simohayhaa6730]

I had to learn this in my AP Euro class, but I didn't quite understand it and the LD debate captain in our class couldn't quite explain it to me well enough. Thank you for posting this video, it's helped me a lot on understanding this ^^

[@raducristina8612]

It helped me a lot!!! After I watched your video, many things, started to make sense... Thank You Very Much!

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! Glad it was helpful for making sense of the text

[@mickmcknight162]

Kant's second categorical imperative is priceless. What a genius-a great equalizer.

[@GregoryBSadler]

The second is indeed. This video is, however, just about the first

[@GregoryBSadler]

I'm glad you found it useful and enjoyable

[@jwayze908]

This is such a help for my class! Thank you so much. Your lectures really break things down and are very very helpful. I wish these were my lectures!

[@GregoryBSadler]

+jwayze908 Glad the videos are useful for you!

[@GregoryBSadler]

It would be paraphrasisng in such a way as to leave out something really key for Kant -- figuring out precisely what makes something moral. That's why the conception of duty isn't enough. One needs the Categorical Imperative

[@GregoryBSadler]

Contradiction in the concept has nothing to do with what you'd want -- that would be contradiction in the willing part. Instead, it has to do with whether the very concepts involved in the maxim wouldn't end up in a contradiction with each other

[@stephanybundok1387]

Could you differ Contradiction in Conception and Contradiction in Will. It starts mixing up with a couple of examples. So in Contradiction in conception you don't get what you want because you don't want everyone doing the maxim. But in contradiction to will you can get what you want but contradicts to another one of your wants/needs?

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're very welcome!

[@zombalay]

I have watched a lot of your videos, I m very grateful with you for making this possible, Thank you for being such a good educator :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome! Glad you've watched -- and found useful -- a lot of the videos!

[@weedmarleyisme]

Hello professor Sadler, I was wondering if you can do lessons on Freud and Kierkegaard? These two legends are the center pieces in the community of human behavior. Other than Kant. Who so happens to be a favorite of mind. I'm also wondering what your thoughts are with Salvador Dali? Do you think he should be discussed with all these philosophers? I'm also intrigued on who or what interest you, in the field of ethics and morality

[@erby1kabogey9]

Would it be paraphrasing too much to say that if your going to be a moral person you cannot do anything that goes against being one? Thanks for the videos btw, they are a great help!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks! Glad you like them

[@Kwintessential2]

Glad I have found your channel

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad they helped!

[@rickcotc]

Nice shorted version of this important ethical subject. Thanks!

[@SilverCoinNews]

You're awesome, once again. I have a lot of metaphysics to catch up on for my exam on Thursday, class is in session!! (after I finish this essay on ethics) Thanks for the vids, very informative, keep it up!

[@GregoryBSadler]

new Core Concept video on Kant

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, that's fine, so long as you're not losing essential content. If you are, you're not remembering what you're hoping to remember, but something else

[@poehamilton8731]

when education and learning are taking place, There is a phenomenon that occurs where that person becomes aware of the reality of what is and is not rational. Treating someone with humanity( respect, honor, worth) should lead to realization of what you would want to receive as well. Which is perfectly labeled as" means" and "ends" by the legendary Kan. Education is so important because it seems to me, once human beings are empirically gathering data or information, their ontological brain will let the posteriori knowledge access it in its reality and waking consciousness and instantly will apply itself as a simulation of that new imaginary reality. So the ultimate goal would have units or people interact and interface in a manor that would emit prosperity, progression, and consumption. I truly wish I could've had lectures from The great Kant himself. Professor Sadler, how do you feel about Kant's intelligence and knowledge on a personal note? has he ever given you some form of clarity or anything like Aristotle has done for you? He just seems to have made the most sense in the topic of making a happy, modern, intelligent society and what their laws of morals and behavior come mean.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Do I experience the sort of clarity from Kant I get from working through Aristotle? No, but I do enjoy reading and thinking about Kant

[@troyj14]

do you have information about "strict duties" and "non-strict duties?"

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yep. In fact, I give you some in the video, and in a number of other videos. or you might try googling the topic. . . . .

[@troyj14]

haha of course... google what was i thinking. Thank you for introducing strict and non-strict duties

[@nurselicrac9243]

Thank you so much, it helped me to write my midterm paper :)

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was useful for you

[@omerazhari38]

thanks for all Dr.Gregory

[@thomasfisherson]

So would it be safe to say that Kant would be against post-modern moral relativism?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Take away the bullshit adjective "post-modern", and the answer is yes

[@PringlesOriginal445]

I would appreciate it greatly if you could help me with this issue I am having understanding this 1st formulation. I keep failing to see the contradiction (I might just be going mad because I truly don't see it). So my maxim is: "lie to get out of trouble when i am in a difficult situation", I must will that "everyone else also lies to get out of trouble when they are in a difficult situation". But where is the problem, since Kant isn't focusing on consequences which is the only place i can see a problem with my willing (a world full of liars and not knowing when a person is telling the truth or lying), but where is the actual problem/contradiction/ inconsistency? If everyone is walking around lying to get out of trouble, that would be the end of that? Nobody can "know" that the person is lying? I might know because I willed it to happen, but the rest of the universe wouldn't know, and if all the lies are believed I dont see the issue? I have been trying to understand this for over a week know, I am pulling my hair out because I just cannot grasp where the contradiction is. Maybe what I believe a will is (wanting something to happen?) Is wrong? Please, I know you have taught this in your lecture but if you could just answer my question I would be so, so greatful.

[@alternatives3379]

Is it right to say that Kant and Sartre agree in some way when it comes to that duty to do what's right and thinking it's actually universally right; The responsibility that Sartre talks about when deciding what to chose with our freedom? Thank you for this lesson!

[@GregoryBSadler]

There's some parallels, but also some major differences.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Thanks! I'm glad as well

[@quannguyenminh3290]

So kant's categorical imperative is a good example of a prima facie moral principle that must always be followed , no matter consequences ?

[@GregoryBSadler]

A prima facie principle isn't one that must always be followed.

[@Dialuted]

Lol you look like a bigger version of Clark Kent but I found this video GREAT. thanks so much. Have an exam next Wednesday and this helped clear up a lot of things

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was useful for you

[@Dialuted]

Gregory B. Sadler Also.. can you explain to me EXACTLY what is defined by the term "categorical imperative".. I know that Kant says that we should act on the maxim only if it satisfies the categorical imperative. what exactly does this mean? I know we should act on our maxims if we are OK with it being a universal law and it won't bring a problem to society. If you have the time please explain...

[@GregoryBSadler]

I've actually made a number of videos on that -- check them out. If you're still needing more, I do 1-on-1 tutoring

[@billcareyphd9619]

Impressive interpretation from Mr. John Smith. I got your point! for example:If lying becomes right for person A then it is right for everyone. Morality depends on the view of everyone, just like the moral landscape theory of Sam Harris! Lying wrong?? Stealing wrong?? no man on earth can say only God.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well. . . it's a misinterpretation that strangely keeps popping up. . . that's all I'll say

[@billcareyphd9619]

Rousseau: The general will should come from all to apply to all. (morality depends on everybody's will) Nietzsche: Morality has no foundation, it is just man made therefore, it is artificial (Killing is neither right nor wrong) Sartre: Existence precedes essence, thus, human beings invents what moral and what is not. (Since essence is absent when human begins to exist, then morality has no essence) Confucius: Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. (Killing is immoral for you do not want it to be done unto you) Harris: Science can determine what moral is not God (Man invents what he wills to be moral) Kant: Categorical Imperative: Universal/End/Autonomy (Lying is immoral) WHO TOLD KANT THAT LYING IS IMMORAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?"

[@billcareyphd9619]

Isn't it that Kant gave us a handy tool - also known as Categorical imperative - to test any given action whether it is moral or not? Is gay marriage moral? how about bisexuality? if everyone become bisexual or gay as what universality states, then gay marriage would be possible to become moral, as it is now allowed by The Netherlands, Spain, .. On the contrary, Bible - as a better moral tester - clearly states that all forms of sexual relations of same sex are immoral.

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

I have always wondered, given this first formulation of the CI, does it not follow that Celibacy is impermissable? Celibacy as in the maxim of commitment to an abstinence from marriage and sexual relation.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Test it out. What's your maxim?

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

@@GregoryBSadler By a Maxim did Kant mean, "taking some action A for some reason B"? I have heard people say that Kant did not permit specifics when consdering maxims. What did they mean by this?

[@GregoryBSadler]

@@Michael-Hammerschmidt kzbin.info/www/bejne/rpjJY52wqc-UfJY

[@Michael-Hammerschmidt]

@@GregoryBSadler Fair enough.

[@DouglasHPlumb]

I wish you could talk about the Categories as in the first Critique, particularly the Transcendental Deduction and the part proceeding that in how time relates to all categories. This is what everyone thinks is so hard about the first Critique. Metaphysics of Natural Science isn't much help. There is something missing in all this explanation provided by Kant.

[@HeyItsCherieChezcam]

Anyone know how to define the difference between the contradiction of conception and the contradiction of will.

[@GregoryBSadler]

With one, there's a contradiction revealed in the very conception of the thing, whether anyone wills it or not. With the other, there's no such contradiction, but rather it would be contradictory for the person to will it. There's really nothing more beyond that, I'd say

[@HeyItsCherieChezcam]

Thank-you!

[@JohnSmith-my5cg]

You did a great explanation sir. If I may ask, Is my understanding correct that Kant's view of what is "moral" depends on what the majority accepts to be moral? So even if "murder" is innately immoral yet if accepted as moral by the MAJORITY, then it becomes moral thing???

[@GregoryBSadler]

Kant's view has nothing to do with what the majority opinion might be

[@JohnSmith-my5cg]

ah ok Dr. but isn't it the word universal means "majority"?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Not in Kant.

[@JohnSmith-my5cg]

thank you sir..then what does universal mean? in Kant's definition?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Universal means applying to everyone, no exceptions -- it has zero to do with what people believe. It sounds like you could use some 1-on-1 discussion or tutoring. I do that through Google Helpouts. If you're interested, here's the link: helpouts.google.com/115610514266074572098

[@senorfootball2460]

Where are the examples for this? I still didn't understand the part on how you can "will" someone to follow the universal law

[@GregoryBSadler]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/oYTRqamkp6h7gtk

[@PrevailVideos]

I prefer duty based ethics and I think they would be a better emphasis for law over rights. The only problem with ethics with strict principles is they're inflexible so that you can almost always come up with a situation where they're contradictory or lead to horrible conclusions. Having said that, the questions of consistency and "what if everyone did this" that this view brings are good considerations.

[@matthewasher9819]

Formula of Life you tube under name matt asher please watch. thank you

[@DouglasHPlumb]

Your lectures are excellent BTW.

[@dronegrey]

When you went over Kant's view on the universal law (If lying is wrong for person A then it is wrong for everyone), it sounds similar to when Sartre says that when you make a choice you're making it for all of humanity. Was Sartre majorly influenced by Kant on that note?

[@GregoryBSadler]

I suppose. Kant's not the only person who has stressed the universalizing implications of action and choice

[@BarbaraBrasileiro]

So, I'm having a hard time with the case of lying and telling the truth. I don't want either worlds of lying or telling the truth always. I think you have to assess each situation. What do I do according to this imperative then? So saying that "you always have to say the truth" or "you can tell lies if it's convenient for you" are not maxims I would live by, according to this law (and I agree with that). Maybe I have to figure out what are the situations where I can tell a lie and make that a maxim?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Kant is really a stickler about this matter. Of course, "you must always tell the truth" doesn't mean that you can't simply not say anything to the imagined axe-murderer of hard cases You could come up with a maxim along the lines of "in the case of X, and only in that case, everyone should tell a lie"

[@BarbaraBrasileiro]

@@GregoryBSadler ok, great. Yes, I'm trying to formulate a maxim like that. Thanks

[@ShayMagnolia]

Thanks for helping me with my homework :D !!!

[@ZillaVoX]

Thank you so much for posting this! I wish you were my ethics professor, everything makes a lot more sense now!

[@madzilla666]

saved my grade dude

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad it was helpful

[@matthewasher9819]

Bifurcated will is "do as I say not as I do" maybe?

[@GregoryBSadler]

Yes, that would be an example of it, I think

[@matthewasher9819]

Thanks I appreciate your knowledge. good day

[@GregoryBSadler]

Or, may a perfect will bless you (i.e. present an example of proper willing to., . . .)

[@phil-1477]

Yees, nice video, thank you very much!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you found it useful

[@truckieco2]

I would say God bless you. But i think it is more appropriate to say, Rationality bless you. Thanks.

[@MBarberfan4life]

Great video!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Rene Descartes Thanks

[@tracylanza6145]

Thank you soooooo much!!!

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well there you go -- you've got the skeleton for shooting your own video on the topic

[@hiplocha]

thank you sir

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome

[@Suavestmanalive]

I've read, and agreed, that philosophy is the art of saying nothing with as many words as possible. You have broken that idea for me.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad to read that -- I think there's plenty of other people out there who might do that as well.

[@pshyeah1128]

According to Kant, would it be immoral if everyone illegally downloaded music?

[@GregoryBSadler]

It would be stealing, so yes

[@tiestofann44]

Im still confused agh! This is the hardest theory I need more help

[@GregoryBSadler]

tiestofann44 Well, if you're interested in a tutorial session, here's the link: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/

[@JoshiiiiBlue]

I think whoever translated Kant's first formulation from German to English, wanted people to get confused. :D tbh it is much easier to understand what he is saying in the German version.

[@GregoryBSadler]

It's often easier to understand a text in the original. Sure. I don't think there's an awful lot of confusion among Anglophone Kant scholars on the categorical imperative. I'd even bet most of us instructors find it pretty clear, though students often require some explaining and examples I'm making these videos for an English-language audience, very few of whom read German, I assume. This offers an excellent opportunity for you to create a video where you discuss the German text and how you would translate it better than the standard translations currently out there.

[@faramakzahraie7967]

Thanks for the lectures. However, it seems to me now that Kant is easier than previously thought. It seems like Categorical Imperative is based on reason and pure reason as opposed to practical reason. In other words the capacity to abstract from the particular to the universal; where the ultimate universal is God. Philosophically, there is always a divide between the particular and the universal, and it seems through the will, Kant is proposing a means to bridge that divide. It gives a whole new dimension to ethics and greater purpose than mere social cohesion. It becomes a way to connect with God.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Well, by your own interpretation of Kant, Kant himself must have been totally mistaken in insisting that the categorical imperative involves practical reason, rather than pure reason. That should probably lead you to suspect that you're probably interpreting Kant wrongly

[@faramakzahraie7967]

Gregory B. Sadler thanks for the correction. however, it still seems to me that Kant is trying to bridge the gap between the particular and universal via will. no? using Categorical Imperative as a methodology or means perhaps?

[@GregoryBSadler]

No, I wouldn't say that's what he's doing. It seems to me to be a lot more straightforward and to be along the lines Kant himself describes

[@faramakzahraie7967]

Gregory B. Sadler thanks. I'll listen to the rest of the series to get better grip of Kant's ideas. But, then I may be developing my own philosophy, being inspired by various thinkers. So far your description of Kant is good.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Glad you're enjoying the videos. Yes, you may very well be working out your own philosophical perspective

[@mickmcknight162]

Kant's is an ideologist. Not everybody can act on a high ethical and moral code to get out of poverty for example.

[@GregoryBSadler]

These are Core Concept videos -- not really a discussion forum for what one doesn't like about Kant

[@mickmcknight162]

I like Kant, I think he had an amazing mind. His philosophies were very much subjected to the middle and upper classes. If we were living in a perfect world he had the best moral and ethical philosophies, but unfortunately we're not, and never will be. Your videos are very good Gregory.

[@erby1kabogey9]

Just trying to find an easier way to say it and remember it.

[@matthewasher9819]

What?

[@GregoryBSadler]

what what?

[@matthewasher9819]

Keep up the good work of what you do. Some parents asked me when I was walking if their baby was cute. But the baby was a ugly baby so I lied and said yes he's quite cute. I lied and went on my walk. They were happy. Do you believe sometimes in life it is ok for little lies or not.

[@matthewasher9819]

When you said "will that to be the case" is it though force or persuasion.

[@matthewasher9819]

Just trying to get the right persons attention.

[@GregoryBSadler]

Do I believe that white lies can be morally permissible? Yes. But I'm not Kant

[@JohnSmith-my5cg]

Categorical Imperative:is itself EVIL: 1. ADULTERY : originally believed to be immoral, 2. but later on agreed by the majority to be moral, 3. then, It becomes universal, for the majority "likes" it to be moral 4. It becomes an END not as a means since; victims like it and therefore they have not used as a MEANS. 5. It becomes MORAL since it is the autonomous decision of both man and women and the majority. It is the "will" of everybody. 6. Therefore, ADULTERY can be accepted someday as MORAL and not immoral. 7, WILL THIS BUILD AN ADULTEROUS NATION???

[@lucasdarianschwendlervieir3714]

This is wrong on many levels. First of all, I don't buy the the majority of people today believe adultery to be moral - they may say it's ok or acceptable, but people don't usually go out there and uphold 'you should cheat' as a high virtue. They might tell their friends 'you should cheat' but that's situational and cannot be called categorical. Are they telling their friend's partner that they should cheat? No, I don't think so. I'm not sure what you mean by liking it to be moral, but adultery is not an universal law empirically in the sense of Kant, as I understand it - because there are people who don't follow it - there are plenty of people who don't cheat. It's also ridiculous to suggest that victims of cheating like to be cheated upon - they probably wish they lived in a world in which people didn't cheat - which suggest a universal law that is the exact opposite of the one you conceived - the law of 'no one should cheat'. I'm not sure if you were trying to apply the categorical imperative or not, but I don't think you interpreted it correctly - when you conceive of a universal law you imagine a world where it's impossible not to follow that law - i.e. it becomes a natural law, not a law that is voted as moral by democratic means. The question becomes whether you would like to live in that world. This is where the categorical imperative gets a bit murky imo, since people can disagree on whether they would live in that world or not or whether that should be what the world is like, and they may also disagree on what that world would look like - i.e. what are the consequences of the universal law.

[@niemand262]

I am disappointed by this video. You totally skipped the part where you could have walked a student through the logical argument for truth telling. You just sort of danced around it, with a little phrase about how "it just ends up contradictory". Tell them how it breaks down. It's easy. Lying is the abuse of trust. If lying were good, and thus common, trust would not exist. This absence of trust makes lying meaningless. So, as you can easily see, if lying were good it would become meaningless.

[@JohnSmith-my5cg]

Categorical imperative simply states: "Whatever is "pleasurable" to the majority is moral thing", regardless if it is evil or not.

[@HeyWelcomeToMyWorld]

Kant is not a consequentialist. You're confusing 'Deontology' with 'Act Utilitarianism'

[@gorniahills9387]

Yep! a nihilistic view of morality. Kant only explains what should be our duty or human obligations but not the "correctness/wrongness" of any duty. Where did Kant get the idea that "lying" is not moral therefore not moral to everyone when in fact there are white lies - or "good lies"... yet the Bible stands strongly that all forms of lying is "wrong"..Hence, Kant got it from the bible.

[@GregoryBSadler]

If you're saying that Kant's theory is nihilistic, that would be a very unusual interpretation of his moral theory, or perhaps an unusual use of the term "nihilistic"

[@GregoryBSadler]

You're welcome