Immanuel Kant's Moral Theory - a summary with examples

[@piico5658]

You are so good at teaching! As someone who knows nothing about philosophy, your lectures are truly captivating. You touch on complex subjects, without bringing in all the confusion I would usually get when I try to read or watch philosophical statements.

[@Free_Beers]

Agreed. He really is excellent. I actually teach philosophy at a local state college, and these lectures still help me to better understand the material presented. I use these videos to help prep for my own lectures. Thank you Dr. Kaplan!

[@willieluncheonette5843]

" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never - it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day. One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way - one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?” He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.” A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” - a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes,” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.” The woman asked, “About what?” He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons - whether to marry or not to marry.” The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman - he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing. It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same. One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons - existentially, experientially.” But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.” The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.” He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

[@MrBillx89]

It's Thomas de Quincey, right? I could never understand how much of his writings on Kant are belivable or not. They seem so strange.

[@johncracker5217]

This is one of the most autistic comments I’ve ever seen

[@NicholsonNeisler-fz3gi]

Quite a good story and perhaps the best insight into Kant by word count

[@andycremeans]

Wow

[@TheSammywammybar]

He was autistic, wasn’t he?

[@TheLastCrow5150]

Was simply looking for paradoxes and I find this. Ended up listening to it all. That was tripped out. It's almost like the psyche can kind of understand the idea but we can't describe it because language is linited. We can draw it out, write it out with charts, understand the question. But explaining and speaking the idea is very hard to do because of our language. Like the mind has surpassed the ability to speak. I've hit those levels within math and it still baffles me when I'm doing it. Tutoring college students is interesting because you need to help them envision the subject in a unique way for each student. At the same time, I also become very good than I'd usually been. It's almost an example on its own. Unique problem, shown only one solution, find there are several when you get good enough. And there's a single answer but it can be written in different ways. Just the thought of this going on with each person is weird. Same class, different reasons for taking said class. Agh. I'm rambling. Need to give my head some rest.

[@kaptainwarp]

"It is easier to do good than it is to make a maxim" -Mark Twain

[@GlassBottleStudios]

We base ethics on what is easier? No.

[@rinkinkel]

@@GlassBottleStudios It's an observation, not a base for ethics.

[@tubsy.]

Ethics are meaningless anyway ​@@GlassBottleStudios

[@raultalmon1467]

It is a tool to be free, to decide yourself what is good and what is bad.

[@davidfoo6974]

Your backwards writing is truly impressive Sir. Great lecture BTW.

[@laurentsindhu5619]

the video was flipped

[@davidfoo6974]

@@laurentsindhu5619 Lol. I thought he was ambidextrous and could write backwards. Mark of the Devil.

[@TheRazz1717]

He's not writing backwards, he flips the video. He's not left handed and his buttons are on the wrong side. It can also be done by reflecting the image on a mirror.

[@shoutitallloud]

@@TheRazz1717 Now you have ruined everything.... EVERYTHING!

[@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633]

@@davidfoo6974 I hope you're joking.

[@BardovBacchus]

The wisdom of Esmeralda Weatherwax, as told by Terry Pratchett "...sin, young man, is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what sin is.’ ‘It’s a lot more complicated than that -’ ‘No. It ain’t. When people say things are a lot more complicated than that, they means they’re getting worried that they won’t like the truth. People as things, that’s where it starts.” . History and literature is chock full of people, innocent people even, who sacrifice themselves to save many others, counter to the assumption the innocent man would never agree to be framed. I think 'pleasure' is the wrong word, damned Puritans gave it a bad connotation. It seems to me that most folks think of pleasure as idle and wasteful, mere decadence. I think LeBron James takes a lot of pleasure in playing basketball. We can imagine great minds deriving pleasure from thinking great thoughts. There is pleasure in satisfaction and accomplishment, having worked hard and seeing the fruits of such labor.

[@toxendon]

Now that's a nice profile picture.

[@BardovBacchus]

TYVM, @@toxendon, they ain't coming for this socialist, not this time

[@Ignirium]

"Sin" has a whole lot of baggage and claims behind it and a story attached to the meaning of the word, young man. - My wisdom

[@BardovBacchus]

So does "freedom", @@Ignirium but I'm not sure the baggage of a word should influence us that much. Then again, I prefer ethics to faith based morality. Still, there is more to faith than mere religiosity. . “Take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder and sieve it through the finest sieve and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. and yet... and yet you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there is some... some rightness in the universe by which it may be judged.” Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

[@Ignirium]

@@BardovBacchus I believe "justice, mercy and freedom" are emergent properties that arise from higher orders of complexity as you move through layers of the integrative levels; particles>molecules>biology>consciousness>ethics/faith/intention ect. Yeah, I don't think faith can be avoided in belief formation. Doesn't "Sin" mean "against God's will"; to sin against God? That's the baggage i see. I'd rather use another word without that additional meaning conjoined to it. I think it's more useful and less confusing.

[@rajendramisir3530]

Interesting contrast between two diametrically opposed moral theories - Kant’s Deontology vs Utilitarianism. Categorical Imperative vs Pleasure minus Pain. Brilliantly presented, explained and discussed.

[@chetsenior7253]

To a Taoist, there is no such thing as opposites.

[@enochlo9156]

@@chetsenior7253 which Taoism are you referring to? Because the most well-known one has heavy modifications inspired by Confucianism and Buddhism, and we all know about Yin-Yang, the two governing and opposing universal forces responsible for maintaining balance. They have *great* emphasis on opposites.

[@TheVeganVicar]

META-ETHICS (THE DEFINITION OF LAW/MORALITY/ETHICS): The three terms - law, morality, and ethics - are fundamentally SYNONYMOUS, since “breaking the law” implies the execution of an act that is both immoral and unethical. Likewise, an immoral act is necessarily unethical, and vice versa. See the Glossary for the etymological definitions. The following two “red-letter” paragraphs encapsulate what is, undoubtedly, by far the most ACCURATE understanding of law/morality/ethics (“dharma”, in Sanskrit) ever conceived, and ought to be used by every learned person when teaching morality and practicing law/dharma. Imagine if every human on earth was to memorize and follow its wisdom, the current trajectory of impending doom might easily be averted! A LAW is a principle predicated on an inextricable axiom. In the realm of physics, an example of such an axiom may be: According to the law of reflection, the angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection. In the realm of morality, there is but a singular law/principle, and that is, the axiom of: “Do no undue (that is, unjustified) harm to oneself, to human society, to other living organisms, or to the inorganic environment, and preferably, as far as practicable, do those actions that will benefit oneself, society, other living beings, and/or the natural environment”. MORALITY/ETHICS is that field of science concerned with how any particular volitional act conforms to or contradicts this moral law/axiom. Hence, the plural (“laws”) is utterly redundant. Thus, the phrase, “The laws of my country seem to be awfully oppressive”, is nullified by the very definition of the term “law”. The self-styled “laws” listed in the so-called “law books” of the various local, state, and national governments of the world are largely spurious rules and regulations that are an attempt to codify normative responses to a range of nominally criminal acts. MORAL acts are those deeds performed by a human that benefits that individual, other individual humans, society as a whole, other organic life forms, and/or the natural environment (irrespective of whether or not the environmental undertaking or activity directly benefits organic life). Theoretically, a non-human animal, too, can execute a moral deed, such as a dog that rescues its owner from drowning in a pool of water. AMORAL acts (at least for the purpose of this teaching) are those actions that are neither against the moral law nor those that directly benefit oneself, society as a whole, or the natural environment (in other words, amoral acts are neutral acts). Only an infinitesimally-tiny proportion of all our endeavours belong to this category. Consequently, the term “amoral” rarely, if ever, need be used in discussions of law/morality/ethics. IMMORAL deeds are those premeditated actions that are in defiance of the moral law. This refers to those volitional actions executed by a person of adequate rational competence (that is, a child over the age of reason, or an adult who is not mentally disabled, and in some cases, a non-human mammal belonging to a species with a relatively advanced intellectual capacity, especially a domestic pet) that are intended to cause harm to individuals (including oneself), to society as a whole, or to the natural environment, the latter of which may include other living organisms. Here, “act” may include an “act” of omission. If one has the ability and the opportunity of assisting a fellow human (and in certain cases, a non-human animal) in dire need, one ought to do so. Refer to the section concerning the so-called “is-ought problem” in this regard. These two passages comprise the most authoritative META-ETHICAL position, and the vast majority of humans who have ever lived would largely agree with it (or, at least the vast majority of those with a modicum of both intelligence and wisdom - this planet is full of abject fools). The term “NORMATIVE ETHICS” refers to the discernment of which kind of acts are moral or immoral (or at least amoral). See further down for the most veracious exposition of normative/applied ethics extant, as well as the entries “meta-ethics” and “normative ethics” in the Glossary. N.B. Above, the words “premeditated” and “intended” were included in the definition of “immoral deeds” in order to disqualify those harmful actions that are strictly accidental and NOT those actions that are deliberate. So, in order to provide an example of a purely accidental deed, a cyclist who inadvertently hits a child suddenly running across his path is completely blameless, of course. An unmarried couple who engages in illicit sexual intercourse, does so intentionally, even if they are so naive to think that their sinful deed will NOT cause undue harm, and even if it was NOT premeditated (in other words, an impulsive act). Keep in mind that moral culpability is always to be judged on a case-by-case basis. The reason for acts alone being included in the above definitions is simply because immoral thoughts cannot be punished by a second party. However, it should be obvious to those who are truly intelligent and wise, that immoral thoughts are harmful to the thinker of such thoughts. Of course, if and when deleterious thoughts fructify as manifest crimes, those crimes should be punished, if deemed sufficiently injurious. Furthermore, despite the implication that immoral acts are entirely premeditated, this can apply also to those actions that are the RESULT of premeditated actions, an example being the injury or death of another, precipitated by a perpetrator who is operating a machine whilst drunk.

[@harryevans4513]

​@@TheVeganVicarThat was a well worded explanation. I have a few questions. The most important one is.. When you describe the 'law' (or the axiom that is supposed to be inextricable), how do you give a valid justification for this axiom. One example that you gave of physics is the law of reflection, this is not really an axiom as it has an explanation in the probabilistic (pardon my jargon, I don't have better words) theory of quantum field theory of light, QED (also the title of a book by Richard Feynman where he explains this phenomenon). An axiom that I could use as an example would be that the speed of light (in vacuum) is a constant, i.e. any inertial (again a jargon term) observer would measure the same speed of light (or more accurately, the speed of causality, light just moves at this speed). This is something that comes out of experiments/observations spread out over a century and trying to negate this axiom, and would need to be abandoned/changed if any evidence shows it to be false. As for morality, I don't see an empirical way of justifying a claim of the inextricable axiom, so I think one could reach there by using purely reasoning on top of the empirical evidence we have for how reasoning would have evolved as a characteristic in the first place. Could you justify your axiom in such a way (or point out a flaw in the way of justification that I mentioned)?

[@harryevans4513]

​​@@TheVeganVicarThe other questions come up only after I agree with your axiom (or some are unrelated) 1. One is that how do you justify non-human animals as committing any act that is either moral or immoral? If they cannot conceptualise morals or use reasoning in the first place, how can they commit any non-amoral act. A dog could save their human friend but also the same dog would eat other small animals when it could possibly survive completely on plants (this is a random assertion just for the argument, I do not know if a vegan diet is sustainable for dogs as it is for an average human). The fact (if it is true) that the dog cannot conceptualise morals, it cannot know whether eating another animal is a moral or immoral act and hence can never choose an eating behaviour. 2. How can you make a general claim that an unmarried couple having sexual intercourse is an immoral act? Is this part of how you define nature in your axiom (And again if it is, what justification do you use for it)?

[@Bartleby317]

I love the way you teach! I especially love how quickly you speak! I have ADHD and I don't have time to get bored with what you are saying because you always have a new and fascinating point coming up!

[@joaoqueiroz6669]

i get what you're saying but learning doesn't necessarily have to be fun. sometimes it's better to pick up a book and read it even though it might be a little boring. you can't be feeding from other people's analysis all the time. going right to the source is always better. of course, that doesn't mean you shouldn't be listening to anyone else teachers shouldn't have to be entertainers. knowledge, by itself, is what really matters

[@gilbeegee5386]

@@joaoqueiroz6669 idk how to tell you this but books are literally just another person’s analysis too. It does not matter how you learn, so long as you do. Learning that is not engaging is just information regurgitation and typically does not stick

[@belottov]

​@Gilbee Gee Yeah, but there's something called a primary source. The further you get from it, the more twisted the information gets typically. Don't act as if you didn't understand that. And yes, it does matter how you lear things, because you can also learn how to independently seek out information, as not always it will be easily presented or digestible, otherwise everything should be explained in very simple baby terms. If you rely on someone else for information you're liable to get mislead and lied to.

[@sh1tb1rd]

Your ADHD is an excuse for your need to digest complex theories in enjoyable ways. Reading Kant for yourself will result in a better understanding of his ideas because of the personal relation you will have with the source material.

[@ameliavanderniet8732]

@@sh1tb1rd you don't seem to understand how ADHD works. Becoming bored can make it impossible to concentrate and learn. Not by choice or failing of character, but due to neurology. Dennis isn't using ADHD as an excuse, they're expressing gratitude that the material in this video is accessible to them in a way that a lot of material is not.

[@ProfNinja30x]

So I've been living by a version of the categorical imperative for the last 20 years. It's not this one, more of a mashup of the philosophers I was reading back then, but it has been a really interesting life as a result. My version is this: "if everyone behaved the same way would the world be better off or worse?"

[@lennardmauc9459]

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." Immanuel Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals This is actually a part of Kant's moral theory.

[@ProfNinja30x]

@@RickyTikkiPaddy I think the wrestling with what is the longest term sense of good is what matters. Sometimes it's obvious, we have a pretty quick sense of when someone is contributing to a group and when they aren't, more often it's not. But if everyone were to wrestle with the longest term implications of their actions, even thoughts, then humanity would be better off.

[@ProfNinja30x]

@@lennardmauc9459 thanks, that's the sentence that influenced my life (and morphed into my version of it).

[@ProfNinja30x]

@@RickyTikkiPaddy I also would never imagine it to make a mono-culture of uniformity. To paraphrase Lennard, if your behavior were to be the universal law, would it be a just law. For instance, I'm a mathematician and being a quant on wall street was tempting at some point, but for everyone to make their living in a zero-sum activity wouldn't make the world better. So I switched my career into activities that service others and create wealth and opportunities. While trying to avoid versions of those activities that are ever exploitative. It's never perfect but it has been a much more reliable way of thinking and acting

[@claystablein9739]

I put it into a process. I act as if everyone is their own sovereign and are their own universal law as a principle of engagement. I entice and encourage the same type of attitude until we need to do something with a shared object. This object should be the CI I've described, the whole time. Then it doesn't matter what the object ends up being, because it will be something we end up building of value together.

[@christopherbettridge]

I've actually fought my way through Kant's On the Metaphysics of Morals, and I really tried to make it all the way through A Critique of Pure Reason but I only got around 2/3rds of it finished and Jeffery Kaplan isn't lying. Or overexaggerating for whatever reason; Kant is EXTREMELY laborious and at times confusing to read in English. I wouldn't imagine the original German is less difficult when it comes to the concepts themselves. I felt I really got something from the former; the latter, I honestly cannot retain enough to feel as if I truly read it at all. So if you want to challenge yourself upon deep and very influential philosophical writings it's can certainly be worthwhile beyond being able to say "sure I've read Kant". Which is what I probably just did, on some level! It's basically all moral obligations can be reduced to a duty to God, I.m told.

[@Ryuuuuuk]

In Germany we read it in the last year of school and I can attest it's as bad as it can get. I had to read every sentence several times, first time just identifying the sentence structure (main/ subordinate clauses)... identifying technical words... linking the different parts...

[@beluga11129]

@@RyuuuuukHab ihn im Abi….

[@GeckoHiker]

Kant's German is clearer if you understand the idioms of his time, though he doesn't use that many. I think German is an easy language to learn for academic studies.

[@nicolasuribestanko]

@@Ryuuuuuk I am inclined to believe that Kant - though obviously brilliant - might not have been a very good writer. A truly good writer can explain the most complex topic in a way that can be understood by the person of normal intelligence.

[@Ryuuuuuk]

@@nicolasuribestanko Part of it was to make it hard in purpose, for one to exclude common people, or better, it was the tone in intellectual circles. Maybe it was even to hide his ideas from officials, as there was no freedom of speech and the enlightment a threat for the principality. Further he may have done it out of pure intellectual satisfaction. Anyhow, his influence on German culture and law is huge even today, there is a funny video about it here on youtube ("What is German: A Simple Answer." by Carefree Wandering)

[@IndyAMDrew]

Hi, I have just come across this video. All those questions and dilemmas are very close to me. They were so relevant in my life that it came to the point that I felt guilty that I had a roof over my head and a place to sleep as so many others don't... So I should perhaps give away any little that I have and not accept any help as someone else might need it more... It's been a torture for years until one thing occurred to me: it's not wrong that I have the basics, it's wrong that anyone else doesn't... And the rest is derived from this basic premise. It's still not easy to discern but this simple realisation shed some light onto further attempts on finding the truth and justice in highly divided and seemingly unfair world order...

[@shantanukhandkar]

Its a good thing that you didn't watch his video on Peter Singer who basically makes the argument that having a roof over your head while others don't is evil.

[@IndyAMDrew]

Thank you! Now I have to find this video 😂

[@cliffordhodge1449]

Perhaps the most daunting question raised by this is: how do we determine what it is to be "involved"; for any given situation, who is involved and who not? Some people want to include very private behaviors of others by extending a sort of "no man is an island" principle, insisting, "If I am part of the same society, then I am involved and so my objection does prevent you from doing what I would not approve or consent to your doing."

[@alaricpan5927]

I’ve seen a lot of Kant intro stuff, and this is probably the best one I’ve seen. A lot of them just kinda echo each other, but I actually learned new things here, granted things are repeated which is inevitable when doing an intro like this. I really liked the usage of the mere means formulation of the categorical imperative since I’ve gotten so annoyed with the universalizability formulation being used everywhere and misinterpreted by so many to just basically be the golden rule. Personally, I’ve always thought the mere means formulation is so much better just because it’s so much easier to use and understand than trying to work through using the universalizability formulation correctly.

[@chetsenior7253]

Using a formula to understand life seems really misguided.

[@ClockworkAnomaly]

@@chetsenior7253 You prefer to "follow your heart"?

[@alaricpan5927]

@@chetsenior7253 honestly, I’m not sure what part of my comment led you to believe I was using Kant as a formula for understanding life. Kant (or at least this part of his work) is about restricting immoral conduct, which isn’t necessarily the same as some meaning to life as 2 people with completely different views of life like different religions can share similar codes of conduct like not lying, stealing, killing, etc. Also, I don’t even necessarily completely agree with Kant; I just think that he was a well-learned intellectual who made a lot of interesting points, and there’s a lot to learn from that even if you don’t agree with it.

[@mahoneg]

When I was in an ethics class in college YEARS (1983) ago. I still remember some guy who was Kant duty this, Kant duty that... Thanks for this explanation. Somehow I missed Kant in the 3 philosophy classes - Weird how these things you want to figure out stay with you... BTW - Not that my profs were bad. I would have loved to be in your class. Thanks.

[@Elyandarin]

I note that the two aren't incompatible per se, viewed as procedures. One is an inclusion/exclusion procedure, and one is a grading procedure. So you _can_ first use Deontology to sort out the unallowable actions, then you can choose from the remaining actions using utilitarianism. This is a pretty decent way for an AI to choose its actions, for example. Though in the interests of personal freedom - because locking an AI into strict utilitarianism reduces them to a mere means, which is iffy - you should let the AI choose freely from, say, the top ten or twenty percent of allowable actions, sorted by utilitarianism. Note that calculating utilitarianism is highly processor-intensive - you may need to calculate hundreds of years into the future - while calculating deontology is pretty simple, so using deontology as a first filter saves a lot of work.

[@AdamBlade17]

Spoiler: your AI will be a failure. Nobody can fully predict the outcome of an action, not even a super-advanced AI, because of limited knowledge, limited hardware and the butterfly effect. What you CAN do, however, is analyzing past actions and outcomes and drawing patterns of behavior that have on average the highest probability of success. It doesn't matter that they work 100% of the times, what matters is that they've been proven to work best for countless repetitions over long periods of time. That's what the most functional AI models are currently all about, trial and error.

[@chunkyMunky329]

This is absurd. First you talk about it being "iffy" to restrict an AI, which doesn't make any sense. If you have the capacity to limit it, then it implies that it is a designed machine and not a sentient being. It is just following instructions. So why would there be any difference between limiting it to X amount of options or X + 10 amount of options? Its like thinking your screwdriver might be upset if you don't allow it to choose which brand of screws you're going to use. Our society is falling victim to a collective psychosis where someone spends years training their computer to mimic human behaviours, just like an actor being taught a script, and then when we watch the "actor" perform the script we call the police because the actor was crying during a scene. AI is like an actor, playing a role. And we are like an audience who starts to believe that the performance is reality.

[@Elyandarin]

@@chunkyMunky329 When we get AI that works, unlike today's AI, it will without a doubt be sentient. Not because of the convergence towards sentience as the least-effort problem-solving tool, but because humans just want things to be sentient so f*cking much. If some rich guy in the future buys an AI sex doll, he will pay twice as much to have it be sentient. Even if the AI can pretend to be sentient 100% convincingly, if it comes with a certificate fhat says it's sentient, he will pay more, nevermind that it makes him in effect a slaveowner. People like to treat things like persons. People like to be right. Thus people would really like treating things like persons and being provably right to do so. We might as well start thinking about ethical treatment of AI now, because human nature guarantees we'll need it.

[@chunkyMunky329]

@@Elyandarin Your argument is poor. "We want it to be sentient, therefore it will be sentient, even if we have to pretend that is sentient. In conclusion, this proves that we will have the capacity to create sentience" You haven't proved anything whatsoever. And you talk like someone who has no real understanding of computers and what is going on under the hood. A web "page" for example is not a page. It is an illusion created by organising the pixels on the screen to all be at particular colours that get it to mimic a physical page. But it is not mimicking the atoms etc. So it is not paper and it is not a simulation of paper. Its is just an appearnace of paper. Same with AI. It is not the same as the thing it is trying to simulate. It just has an outward appearance of the behaviours of a person. It has none of the inner qualities. Therefore computer sentience is not real and never will be, unless we can develop computers that can integrate with biological processes like lab grown brain cells or something.

[@TheEvilCheesecake]

Rob Miles has some excellent videos on exactly this approach to AI training and development, I can recommend them.

[@brucekern7083]

Is it not bizarre that we can actually speak truthfully without being honest? Honesty is more than mere truth telling.

[@uncletiggermclaren7592]

Every single time my twin has promised to do something or give me something if I do something for him, or in fact ANY promise at all he has made, in our 57 years of life, that I have "accepted" , I have known full well he had no intention of keeping even the SPIRIT of the promise, let alone the letter. It took a while, maybe 20 years, for me to understand this about him, but I STILL found myself accepting, "in principle", promises from him for about another 20. I never hung my shingle up as a philosopher, you understand.

[@colorpg152]

so you got duped?

[@Ignirium]

So you're the good twin :)

[@adrianhigh4210]

The way that Banks treat their customers is the best example I can think of as using us and our money as a "mere means"! Thanks for a simple explanation of something that Iwould otherwise probably have found imcomprehensible.

[@bradleywenham6393]

Just wanted to say thank you for helping me with my courses.

[@troglodp1404]

Wish all teachers were as good as you are sir

[@kevincasson9848]

You are a brilliant teacher and educator young man. And very articulate!

[@anjunakrokus]

Kant, to me, feels a lot like formalized empathy. "Would you want somebody (everbody else) to do that (generalized) action to you?". Obviously it's a bit more complicated, but essentially gets the effect of "Do unto others, what you would have them do unto you".

[@havabighed]

empathy is not a source of morality... you can empathize with evil people.

[@anjunakrokus]

@@havabighed I never said that it was. I stated that it reframing it as "how would I feel if somebody else did what I am planning to do" is very close to "how would that person feel if I am going to do what I am planning to do" which is the basis of empathy. Again, obviously there's more to it.

[@havabighed]

@@anjunakrokus a lot of atheists believe that empathy is a source of morality.... it isn't. Just pointing that out.

[@burrito1413]

its more like "Do unto others only if the principle acted upon should be rational if universalized." tbh

[@havabighed]

@@burrito1413 actually it is "You ought to act in such a way that the maxim of your will can be a universal moral law for all"

[@W4ldgeist]

If you now take the fact that the US/UK are constructed on utilitarian principe, while most European countries have laws written based on Kant's teachings, you get difference in legal systems these countries experience. It also explains a lot of the cultural differences.

[@mileskeller5244]

You crack me up when you say "or something like that" 😂. That should be your catch phrase.

[@Callummullans]

I really enjoy your videos I don’t just feel educated but closer to enlightened

[@auxmobile]

A close enough translation of Deontology ('Δεοντολογία' in greek) would be 'Rules of behaviour ( or operation)'.

[@anndreeyaaa]

This is the best video I’ve ever come across on KZbin. ❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

[@noname-by3qz]

Nietche said since Kant believed in God, Kant can't be taken seriously. Makes complete sense.

[@AssassinFortniteClips]

Came here to ask: why are the comments turned off for your Peter Singer video? Seems like folks would have a lot to say about that one.

[@digichu007]

It's in the description of that video.

[@lennardmauc9459]

Question: In class we used the trolly problem as an example of utilitarianism vs deontology. Could the single person on the tracks "consent" to to being sacrificed, and the act of killing that 1 person be permissable according to deontology?

[@yamataichul]

Good question, I've been thinking a similar situation to this since I've heard of libertarianism

[@johnkidby7948]

In principle, yes; people lay down their lives to save the lives of others all the time. But it's worth noting that this could also arguably apply to the sheriff example - whether that particular person WOULD consent is another story, but also irrelevant when talking about general moral theory. Deontology has an unfortunate tendency to break down when there are no good options. If you assume that, under the classical formulation of the trolley problem, you are part of the system by your mere presence and awareness of the situation and therefore only have the options "let one person die" or "let five people die" (i.e. that there's no opting out entirely), you sort of have to default back to utilitarianism.

[@lennardmauc9459]

@@johnkidby7948 thank you this was very helpful.

[@colorpg152]

permissible? what do you mean by permissible the only moral authority i have to answer to is the greater good if its for the better I'm pulling that lever

[@RelativelyBest]

@@johnkidby7948 I consider myself a lot more deontologist than consequentialist, though I do think Kant was a bit too hardcore about it. Anyway, to me it's a matter of principles: I believe that it is inherently wrong to kill people who can't defend themselves, as a matter of principle, and as such I must always act accordingly. Thus I would not pull the lever since doing so would effectively constitute the deliberate murder of one defenseless person. The five other people dying as a result is very unfortunate, but that's not actually my fault - I did nothing to cause them to die, and the only course of action that could have saved them required me to commit a deliberate evil act and was thus not a valid option.

[@quasimandias]

The most important comparison between utilitarianism and deontology is in the empirical observation that the consequences of an action cannot be fully known, and certainly the second and third order consequences cannot be known at all, so there ultimately is little IN REALITY to base a decision on. This is not a problem that the Kantian view need struggle with.

[@humayoonnasir3082]

I dont know if youre ever going to read this but i had something to say regarding Peter Singer's philosophy from the previous lecture(comments were turned off there). One of the fundemental principles of Islam is "Zakat", where muslims are obligated to give away a set percentage of their wealth every year to the needy. Some accounts narrate that in the early muslim empire, due to this practice there was a time when people who were giving out Zakat couldnt find anyone deserving of the aid because everyone was pulled out of extreme poverty. I am not trying to be a missionary but its amusing to me that this specific argument which was raised in 1972, where acts of charity are deemed obligatory rather than supererogatory, was a rule established by a 1400 year old religion. Just something to think about. I am not an expert in philosophy but this was just an observation i made. Ps. I love your lectures even though i am watching them after quite some time, you are an amazing educator and you have piqued my interest in philosophy. I really appreciate your work

[@ranranshi]

Jews were of course first in stressing charity.

[@chrisbonnett6783]

Watched your presentation on Singer. Can't believe that got you threats. There was a philosopher who preached against materialism about 2,000 years ago. "Give everything to the poor and follow me" Didn't end well.

[@tubsy.]

It sure didn't end well for him 😔

[@caseyb1346]

I just stumbled across your videos and am just enthralled with your teaching style. I have a dozen other things I could/should be doing but I'm just stuck watching your videos lol so thats pretty good!

[@Sharpened_Spoon]

Thanks. I think making it more clear that using an insincere promise to gain something tangible would help to ground the theory better; but this is easily understandable and obvious that our morality in the modern world is much closer to utilitarianism. Since making some big moral decisions in my life, uncompromising ones, I naturally became almost solely aligned with Deontology. The base driver for this I think is empathy and consideration. Considering yourself as a part of the whole and not to be of an individualistic mindset things like capitalism or tribalism want you to.

[@Drakhra]

This was very clear and a fresh way of presenting kantianism vs utilitarianism. Thank you! Would you make a video about the duty of beneficence?

[@JohnZaabi]

I find Kant not to be as opposed to consequentialism as he's framed to be. In fact, all his examples refer to possible consequences of immoral actions (if you don't follow through with your promises and so forth).

[@makinapacal]

The thing about Kant that I cannot bear is his implacable rigidness. Like so many Philosophers he was scared out of his mind by the notion that Ethics / Morality might be changable to some degree and in some respects changable under certain circumstances. Thus like Plato with his idea of forms Kant bought into the notion of ideal unchangable Morality / Ethics. A notion that fitted Kant's rigid personality to perfection.

[@davidtogi5878]

Isn't his philosophy meant to determine which is morally good or evil? How come a tool for determining morale can fear change in morality? Sounds like thermometer fears in change of temperature. Genuinely curious.

[@makinapacal]

Read Kant. He was searching for unchangable morality that was applicable to all times, all situations etc. In his personal life Kant was a stunningly rigid individual and some of his philosophy reflected all too well his rigid personality. Kant feared, greatly, the idea of exceptions and context challenging the idea of rigid moral precepts. So you get Kant's truly silly notion that lying to a murderer about the location of his next potential victim, (This is assuming you know the person is in fact intending to murder that person.), is "wrong"! Why? Well because everyone has the responsibility to tell the truth at all times, so lying is a complete no-no. Kant when called out on this contorted himself into some truly dumb semantic games / evasions to get around the problems with this notion. Kant's idea about the absolute "sacredness" of truth telling goes back to certain Christian thinkers of the high Middle Ages who argued that it was better that the whole world perish rather than anyone tell one lie no matter how trivial. Kant like these Christian thinkers thought that killing in self-defence was alright. Whatever.

[@davidtogi5878]

@@makinapacal he thought that killing in self-defence is alright but lying for greater good is not. Looks like old Kant had a unique personality. 😆 I think I can understand a bit of why he feared change in morality under certain circumstances like you've said. To be a good measuring tool one must be exact in every conditions, time, place, etc. Each exception to his philosophy meant it become less reliable as a moral compass. Anyway thanks for the explanation man, really appreciate it.

[@makinapacal]

@@davidtogi5878 Kant already allowed for a big exception. Killing in self defence. That is an exception to the moral rule of not killing someone. By elevating lying into something that allowed for NO exceptions Kant was seemingly elevating lying into something more morally blameworthy than killing! Also how is a tool good for measuring if it disregards context? Thus a moral "tool" that disregards context in all circumstances is in my opinion defective. A common response to Kant's ideas of the absolute awfullness of lying has been the Jews in the attic situation. (Yes a Godwin.) During World War II in Europe people hid Jews in there homes etc., to save them from being taken away to a best hidious torture and living conditions but vastly more likely death!! The people doing this had to lie, decieve etc., etc., to keep these people safe and alive! And if people came looking for the people being hidden you decieved them, you lied! Why? To keep these people safe. The idea that you have a duty to tell the truth to Nazis scum out to send innoent people to their deaths the truth about you hiding those people is just sick! Further the notion that those who tell the truth to the Nazis about Jews being hidden are morally superior to those who lie to help hide them is morally bankrupt to the nth degree. I have in the past run into people who try to defend Kant's absolutist position on lying by uttering things like "How can you be sure that something bad will happen to these people?" Thus accepting Kant's arguement that lying to a murderer can only be justified if you can be absolutely sure that the person would be killed if you told the truth and since you can't be absolutely sure you must not lie. Dumb arguement. All you need is a reasonable probability, possibility that something like that will happen. But then Kant elevated lying into some existential, super cosmic crime of crimes. So you get his over the top view of lying has a Universe destroying sin of sins. Oh and in the case of Jews being found who had been hidden the overwhelming majority ended up dead. Anne Frank hid from the Nazis along with 7 others. Someone told the truth about where they were hidden, 7 subsequently died with Anne Frank's father being the only survivor. Kant can bite me.

[@davidtogi5878]

@@makinapacal idk if this is the fact or just my imagination, but from your story it seems Kant held life as more important than truth. That is why he permit killing for self defense. While for truth, its lower in priority so there is no room for permission, you lie then you are morally wrong/evil. However not permitting lies in any circumstances (in this case lying for saving life ) contradict the importance of life. So if we assume that Kant realize this but still insist on it then my guess is Kant wants to say "one cannot lie even for its own life, but they can fight for it". A bit twisted but maybe this is his idea of morality. Again this is all just my assumption.

[@shoutitallloud]

Is it correct to say that Kant's moral principle could be formulated like: "never treat another person in a way that you wouldn't want him to treat you" ?

[@yamataichul]

No, i believe the statement cannot be reformulated like this, but it definitely fits in the overall concept.

[@shoutitallloud]

@@yamataichul Thank you.

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

A better way to think of it is “never do something that if everyone did it, the result is contrary to the initial aim or the common good.” This is actually how you can use Kant, as opposed to religion, to argue against same-sex relationships (since if everyone was in a same-sex relationship, you would end up with no children and thus would end humanity entirely) and it is why Kant is somewhat problematic.

[@davidw6936]

@@drmadjdsadjadi I don't think that the correct analysis. The proper maxim is 'everyone be with whoever you want, regardless of sex' rather than 'everyone be with someone of the same sex'. The latter could never be agreed to by straight people, so it cannot be moral. The former could be agreed to by everyone, at least in principle. However, I think you illustrate why Kant is impractical as a working moral system. It takes too much time to figure out what the maxim is, and you can never be sure you have it right.

[@drmadjdsadjadi]

@@davidw6936 You got the point! And that is precisely the problem - you can literally use Kant to come up with entirely opposite conclusions and most people do that because few actually ever uses morality to derive what they should do. Instead, they just want to justify the behavior in which they want to engage, so most people pretty much start with the conclusion and then working backwards. This is why you are never going to have a complete objective moral philosophy and why morality is ALWAYS relative, even the divine command theory used in religion, which is based on whatever “god” you “choose” to follow and how you choose to “interpret” your “scripture.”

[@Ihas3pair]

A thought on utilitarianism: Yes, if you are among the affluent and you have spare money to spend on more than mere necesities, and there are people who do not have the wealth to acquire these necessities you should give. But what about this: Knowing that the more money you have, well-invested, would grow each year in a compounding way thus extending your ability to give even more than you currently can, provided you will give it all away at the end of your life, do you not have the imperative, if you have the ability, to get as rich as you can: building your wealth reservoir as well as giving a reasonable percentage of your gained wealth each year? Is it better to save a person's life today, than it is tomorrow? Instead of giving all your surpluous money away today and saving one life today, you'd end up saving compoundingly more people tomorrow, all the while still saving some people this year. just something i've been thinking about...

[@curtclayton6675]

So, Utilitarianism is about outcome or what's better for the majority and Kant's Categorical Imperative is about morality which is not always about outcome but more about moral absolutes?

[@runchetrun]

On a long enough timeline circumstantial totalitarianism tends toward kantian as circumstances are generalized. One is a snapshot and the other is at scale

[@immanuelkant9335]

This lecture does not even mention the main point. That Kant explained how only ethical behavior is the same as freedom.

[@himanshuwilhelm5534]

In the sheriff example, there are many ways to get the person targeted for framing to agree.

[@paulsmart4672]

And the notion that the mob could never consent to being fed a scapegoat is a sort of naive view of mobs, I think. The thing about problems like the sheriff example is they are these little bizarre scenarios that you're only supposed to consider to a certain point and never beyond, that are specifically designed to give consequentialism a bad vibe. They are very nearly saying "You think consequentialism is good? Well what if we were in an alternate universe where it has bad consequences?" The crux of the thing like the Sheriff example is sheriffs killing innocent people is something we perceive to have far-reaching negative consequences occurring at many removes. The thought experiment is phrased in such a way as to remove those consequences from your deliberate consideration, but the general sense of them, some vague apprehension that they are lurking out there, remains. So the *stated* consequences point one way, but it leaves you feeling bad about picking that path because of a bunch of unstated and unpredictable negative consequences you intuit as being attached. And if you actually clean it up and get rid of all that murk and unstated spooky stuff floating around, you're just left with exactly The Trolley Problem.

[@Connor-jl9gq]

so many words to say "dont exploit people"

[@lifeisabadjoke5750]

Exactly

[@lucasblanc1295]

Mora philosophers have to create a bunch of terms and spend a ton of time just explaining them so that they can dissect and explain other complex ideas with it. Morality in people is a habit, it's not something they ponder logically through it like computer code.

[@jessejordache1869]

@@lucasblanc1295 "Morality in *me* is a habit. It's not something *I* ponder logically like computer code." Is what you mean. I might be wrong, however, I'll acknowledge I've made a mistake when you produce the universal mind-reader. Anyway, philosophers, assuming they're writing in good faith, formulate things the way they do in order to be rigorous, i.e., to make their statements as unambiguous as possible. The problem with OP's principle is that "exploit" does not have a universally accepted definition. For example, a non-trivial number of people would read OP's statement to mean "Remunerate your workers the full market value of the output of their labor. Do not set aside any margin for profit, reinvestment, or any other purpose."

[@williamc4221]

Why is the comments section shut off on the Peter Singer video?

[@MaoMavo]

cause its a dumb ideology and these "philosophers" circle jerk and protect each other

[@williamjenkins4913]

I was going to ask the same thing. It wasn't about a year ago when I first commented there. I was going back to update my comment after learning that Singer support handicap genocide. Maybe it got to much hate because of that. But still turning off the comments on a philosophy channel is kind of a bad look

[@felipeneto659]

I understood both concepts (utilitarialism and kants deontology) but, according to this video, what would Kant do in the Sheriff position? Because framing a innocent person is prohibited but letting the mob happen is also a prohibited behaviour in theory, so what should you do when two behaviours are prohibited but you must choose between them?

[@rachel_ellingson]

For Kant deontology you cannot frame an innocent person… framing them or not framing them is the only choice that you are explicitly acting on Similarly to the trolley problem… for Kant, you would not pull the level to divert the train, because the one person cannot explicitly consent to being killed as a martyr Utilitarianism is concerned with the overall outcome, while deontology seems to be concerned the direct, immediate choices being made. There may be a riot if do you not frame the innocent person, but the riot would be an indirect consequence of your action. The only direct action pertains to the individual

[@abdurrahmanalabdulsalam1415]

I am glad that I came across one of your videos, and get to enjoy your way of explaining these principals. One thought crossed my mind while listening and comparing both schools, that in utilitarism, the judgement relies heavily on the person ability to see the bigger picture, so if two people follows same school of morality, they might easily take different actions in same scenario.

[@fl3651]

Jeffrey why are comments on the Singer’s video turned off? Is there a specific reason for us not to be able to say something about it? Thanks. Your work is great btw.

[@fl3651]

I’m warning you. If you don’t let me leave a comment on the Singer’s video Im going to leave one on the Descartes one. And that’s waaay more dangerous! lol

[@divinerascal]

Thank you for breaking this down. 🙏

[@YoruShika-vh3md]

This is more detailed explanation. I love it.

[@Surefire99]

I find these two theories supplementary to each other. You need intention from Kants theory, but it's the intention to do the most good vs bad.

[@azabelinski]

Peter Singer claims that every person who got anything “not of moral significance” MUST donate all the excess property (say money) to the people suffering from famine. I state that his statement is shallow and short-sighted. The Singer’s example analysis The Singer’s example of a drowning child is not relevant to the general statement about charity organizations because it is inaccurately generalized: • It does not consider time (see below). • It does not consider complex social and economic structures, it’s just too simple. • It shuffles short-term objectives with long-term ones. Time Let’s build a counterexample to the Signer’s example. The Signer’s example mentions a single arbitrary man, a single arbitrary child, and a dedicated moment in time. The man from the Singer’s example is morally obliges to save the child because most people indeed sure it is a good action every man must take. Let’s decompose social organizations job. They in general do 2 types of actions: 1. Provide some resources like food to people who accidentally became extremely poor. For example, refugees. This situation indeed maps perfectly to the Singer’s example. 2. Provide resources to people who live decades or event centuries in conditions where lots of people starves to death. Let’s map the second item back to the Singer’s example: 1. Let’s say without losing generality that the situation took place on Monday. Consequences: the man is proud of himself but muddy and wet; his colleagues at the meeting are proud of him and he gets some social points into his carma; the child is alive. 2. Tuesday. The man is still happy, goes to the office using the same way. And sees the same child at the same lake. Drowning. Ok, the man again saves this child. Consequences: the man is muddy and wet, he is not proud of himself so much, instead he has questions about what the hell is going on; people at the Tuesday meeting are not proud to see this dirty man again, start to think that he’s crazy or don’t want to work or something, the man loses all social points he gained yesterday; the child is alive. 3. Thursday. Let’s say there is no other way from the man’s home to his office. He goes to the office again. And sees the same child in the same lake again. Drowning… I suppose that formal morality tells our hero to save the child again. But this is at least far less obvious. I personally will not. Complex social and economic structures From a Singer’s point of view even a coffee cup is a luxury. Yes, it is being compared to the death famine. Let’s review the consequences of different strategies. 1. Consequences of spending money to such “luxuries” a. This evolves economics, which gives other people working places and money. b. Some extra money leads to scientific research and art. They grow up exactly when people or governments have some extra resources to spend. And exactly these things especially a science leads to economic growth and finally eliminates poorness not to say famine. c. Individuals are encouraged to do some outstanding, innovative things to get money. Yes, it is pleasant to be famous just for doing some outstanding thing and be thanked, but money and “luxury” provides more courage. d. Individuals with extra money could save this money by transferring it to banks. This leads to economic growth because banks transfer this money to credit. e. Individuals with some extra money being saved have an ability to make decisions freely, without considering poorness in the case of disease for example. So, individuals get an ability to make more strategic decisions and are encouraged to keep trying to make some outstanding things. 2. Consequences of spending nothing to such “luxuries” a. Consequences to donating individuals. i. Individuals that return most of what they earned will ask themselves questions “Why should I work more? Why should I invent something? What differs me from other people that do almost nothing and why do they have the same (very low) level of luxury as me?” Singer’s donations strongly discourage most individuals from taking humanity further. ii. There are some people who are ready to solve problems, invent or create something just to get the pleasure from the act of creation or from getting some knowledge. But there are few of them. Most businesspeople are driven by money. b. Consequences to individuals getting donations. i. According to Singer’s point of view they get donations just to the level at which they don’t suffer much. Basically, they get food and clothes. But they don’t get an ability to sustain themselves without these donations, they don’t get knowledge of how to do it. So, they a doomed to exist at this miserable level. ii. An individual getting a donation is not encouraged to do something himself. Empirically such individuals spend lot more effort doing things like alcohol (to get a bit of pleasure here and now), religions (to get some consolation) or crime (being justified by the equality idea). c. Consequences to societies i. The donation system proposed by Singer leads to high, systematic inequality. But this inequality is not about money. Historically we’ve seen lots of examples of societies built on top of a brute force, religion, national ideas, or some relatively modern ideas like communism. These societies are not efficient, they have social structures built on top of these ideas, not on top of people’s merits. This is not economically efficient. Singer justifies his moral idea on top of economic entities like food or clothes. But his idea contradicts economic purposes. Short-term objectives versus long-term ones There exists a general life paradox about short-term and long-term decisions. When one constantly makes the best short-term decisions, he usually gets a very poor long-term outcome. Singer summons to constantly take short-term decisions and does not try to consider their long-term results. Singer implies that providing some food to several people certainly leads to a best utilitarian outcome. This is generally not true. This is true only in the case of some accidental problems. If the situation is permanent the one that really wants to do some good thing may try to change the whole situation rather than sustaining it. Historical parallels From the cultural point of view Singer’s claim may be qualified as romantic. A romantic person like Jean-Jacques Rousseau seeing an extremely poor family must do following things: • he must help them a bit (e.g., provide them with some food), • console them with some sublime words, • get a moral pleasure because he did something he obliged to do and he did it well, • popularize romantic ideas among other people of his social class, and not to forget to promote himself as a highly moral person, • don’t even think of how to systematically change the state of all people of the poor class. Romantic ideas are very sustainable because it provides people that give donations lots of pleasures like feeling kind, raising their social position above the people who also do little and have little and propagate an equality idea. Singer’s idea of charity is tightly close to Christian charity. Thousands of years Christians had been doing charity, and thousands of years they bought some society respect by doing it, and thousands years there were plenty of people starving to death without any hope to promote to a relatively higher level. Their only hope was to get a handout from somebody’s of the higher class. Conclusion Singer’s charity idea involves economics into a moral area but contradicts economics growth and leads to stabilizing inequality. The Singer’s idea creates non-meritocracy based social structures lowering humanity effort to produce more goods and to raise base economic level. The idea to food people for nothing keeps lots of people, classes and societies on the lowest level of the global society. Of cause Singer tries to bring some good into this cruel world of people. But because he does not consider long-term consequences and just sticks to historically disproven strategies, he and his followers systematically make this world worth. Singer is an evil monster, not the men who try to contradict him.

[@basstringer5586]

What if the innocent person that would be framed, is a devout utilitarianist? (Try to say that fast 5 times.) If his injust treatment spares others, to the extent that it is the "least net negative" scenario, would his utilitarian principles not cause him to consent, thereby making it deontologically permissible (though not good, per se) to frame him?

[@Jacob-sb3su]

Regarding the part around @8:00 (on using person as a means/ mere means), does this strike at why people seem to have a repulsion to the typical rich kid using daddys money? Because it speaks to a person (the son/daughter) using his father as a MERE means? I guess what Im more getting at in my question is does Kant consider the Parental-Kid relationship in the context of using a person as a Mere means?

[@jessejordache1869]

The "mere means" condition revolves around consent, which isn't at issue in your example, at least as far as I could detect. You don't need to go to a rich kid using daddy's money: a nursing infant poses the same issue.

[@mercedesb2299]

I would think it would depend on the specific relationship. At some point all children are using their parent to meet their needs, but for most kids, especially older or adult kids, they would sacrifice a great deal for that parent were the parent to ask. There is generally, some mutual care between the parent and child so in that case, no the parent is not a MERE means to an end. "Mere" is the key word. I think what gets closer is a corporate boss/employee relationship. The corporation hires on a lot of new staff, they make their profits (thanks to the talent & work of the staff) , now its the end of the year and corporate priorities shift to balancing the ledger and closing the year with low operational costs, so they lay-off/fire all those new employees. They were using those employees as a MERE means.

[@benjamink.1970]

After all his lectures, I wonder how he manages to write perfect in mirror wirting... I am impressed. Or did the editor just mirror the whole records? Or is it something else? I don't know and it drives me crazy!

[@mdd4296]

The video was mirrored. In the first video where he had to lecture an actual audience he was right handed but here he is left

[@metaspectivate]

I thought it was just me (looking through the comments) who was amazed by the ability to write in reverse...

[@WickedIndigo]

Is this guy writing backwards on the clear whiteboard in front of him so that we can read it? If he was writing normally it would look backward to us. And if he was flipping it in post production we would still see his arm moving from right to left but it’s moving left to right implying that he’s writing the worlds backwards intentionally so that we can read it. And if this is the case than that’s damn impressive if I do say so myself.

[@mickreilly4162]

He is in fact writing on a clear screen in front of him, but the as it is only a 2D image (like an old kodak negative) it is being displayed (projected) reversed!

[@WickedIndigo]

@@mickreilly4162 oh that’s super cool actually thanks for the info, my friend🤘😎

[@daanperelachaise]

There's one thing I haven't been able to figure out: I wonder if there's an opposite of supererogatory. There seems to be a lot of symmetry in morality (desireable and undesireable things, good acts - make desireable things happen, prevent undesireable things, bad acts give the two opposites of those). So, is there a category of things that are the opposite of supererogatory, things that are bad but if you DO do them, it's still okay? They're extra. If a human component is introduced, some leniency, when it comes to doing good, why not introduce that to do doing evil? This new category feels very counterintuitive to me, which has made the supererogatory category really suspicious as well, even though i do support that as a humanist. Any thoughts?

[@lara6489]

The mere means formulation makes a lot of sense and it was what I learned when studying university. But I still don’t truly understand the nature of how kant understood the categorical imperative. Famously, he thought he must never lie under any circumstance. However I do not know what he thought about warfare. Surely if someone has declared war on you, then you know that they are viewing you as a mere means to an end? In a state of warfare where it is either you or them who is necessarily already reduced to a mere means to each other’s mutually exclusive ends (survival), then why must you still respect the agency of your opponent? Or put another way, if by following the categorical imperative you find yourself allowing yourself to be destroyed, are you not then reducing yourself to a mere means of following the categorical imperative itself? This idea makes so much more intuitive sense than utilitarianism to me, but I can not find a way to understand why Kant was so ready die for this ideal.

[@GeckoHiker]

Immanuel Kant is the forefather of ethical humanism and one of my preferred philosophical sources. I see every human interaction through the lens of what is ethical for humans. I can perform that calculus faster than Kant and am willing to make the wrong decision on my own behalf as long as I make better decisions overall. It's not hard. For a university level philosophy class I argued over the potential killing of a home intruder to prevent harm to my family, friends, and society at large. I proved in class that my decision tree followed all the categorical imperative principles. You see, Kant's philosophy needed more thought experiments and practicality. These principles are still valid, but he died before he lived fully. It takes many fiull lifetimes lived during the normal human lifespan to truly understand the permutations that may unfold. A little bit of Maslow might have helped Kant to understand "the others".

[@mercedesb2299]

The modern arguments against Kant also suffer from a bit of bad faith or lack of imagination or status quo-ism...whatever perspective you want to look at it from. I, personally believe that as far as ethics systems, deontology the ethical system. Utilitarianism, consequentialism are decidedly unethical. Modern society has used some form of utilitarianism for so long that when people debate the merits of deontology they do so by throwing our utilitarian created problems at it and then pointing out how ill suited deontology is for "real world" issues and how naive and sheltered the deontologist. These same arguments are applied against humanism, pacifism, and voluntaryism/anarchism, and atheism as well. What many can't seem to even entertain is the idea that if deontology was the standard system of ethics for everyone and everyone was taught some form of it from birth and we stopped accepting utilitarianism as acceptable, some of our worst problems would never develop in the first place.

[@withlovestephaniedenise7024]

Wow! Thank you because my text book had me feeling discouraged as if I need reading comprehension 101

[@Kalenz1234]

German kids: Learn Kant in 6th grade US: Kant is too difficult for a university introductory course even after being translated.

[@DoYouEvenRift]

Hard when the best translations are still unclear in meaning. If I was raised to fluency in German it would probably be easier to learn.

[@timonschneider6290]

6th graders in Germany cannot and do not read Kant.. We read short excerpts in 10th grade aged 15-16.

[@Kalenz1234]

@@timonschneider6290 Maybe in German lessons. I did read Kant in 6th grade in my philosophy class.

[@timonschneider6290]

@@Kalenz1234 that has to be far and wide the exception though, hasn't it?

[@Kalenz1234]

@@timonschneider6290 Depends on how many schools have/had exclusive religion classes and no philosophy classes. You don't read Kant in religion.

[@tuduraco]

Thank you Mr. Jeffrey Kaplan! I just realized that neural networks AI actually works and function based on utilitarianism, not the Kantian deontology!

[@benizakson264]

I'm not sure though, in this model applied to Mccloskey's Sheriff example, how do you handle the fact that NOT framing the innocent person can not be consented by the people that may be killed in the riot? Is 'no action better than bad action ' an inherent principle of Kant's Deontology?

[@giovanni-kane]

In the sheriff example I think there’s something I’m missing. Wouldn’t it be using the innocent people killed by the mob as a mere means to let them die by inaction?

[@GynxShinx]

Judge friends on the categorical imperative. Judge society on utility.

[@mercedesb2299]

How is that ethical? ...and for the record, you should really be using an ethics system to judge what it is right for you to do, not to sit in judgement over others. The gist of Kant's theory is essentially that every person matters, so treating your friends one way and society another would not be Kantian ethics

[@alexanderkosterman1722]

What is the argument Kant makes to arrive at the categorical imperative? I understand what it means but not the premises that lead to the conclusion that we should take the categorical imperative as a principle for our actions.

[@marcelocampbell1679]

So it would be the least flexible but also the least demanding (at least when compared with utilitarianism)?

[@GrixM]

Utalitarianism and Deontology might seem very different, but to me they seem like two ways to describe the same thing. You can define one using the other. Maximizing happiness is a maxim, is it not? I can take an action with the intention of, after stripping away the details, maximizing happiness. And that is a maxim that everyone could potentially consent to. Who would disagree with the intention of maximizing happiness? Thus, you could argue that not acting in accordance with Utalitarianism is prohibited by Kant.

[@speakeasyfoxtrot]

Somewhat agreed. I think that Deontology can be applied as an internal moral decision making precedent to utilitarianism: i.e. acting moral is THE WAY you provide the most common good for the most common people when it comes to complex outcomes you can't foresee.

[@mandotherapper2586]

This reminds me of Dr House lecturing Chase. "Intentions don't matter, results do!"

[@Dr.Zoidberg087]

too many people refuse to understand this.

[@epone3488]

In deontology how do we really guage "intent" when the intent is outside of our true ability to determin (i.e. the action/intent of others?) Of I know we are talking moral behaviour of the individual but it seems the Deontalogocal possition implies a societal mode i.e. "universal principles" so they apply "universally". No?

[@henryviii267]

Does anyone know links the readings anywhere?

[@profjeffreykaplan]

The reading lists are here: www.jeffreykaplan.org/youtube

[@KevanMajere33]

Hi Kaplan, what do you think Kant would do in this example (obviously hypothetical, and I pray never happens): You are in control of a railway track that where a train is heading towards a huge tree log that lay on the track. If you do nothing, the train would most probably derail and, as such it is very likely that the people in the train will suffer deaths or grievous injuries. You have a choice to alter the train to another track. But there is a child whose leg is trapped in the track, and it is very likely that he will be run over by the train should you change the train's route. Now it is important that this trapped person is a child, because in his innocence and primordial instinct he has yet to understand the meaning of sacrifice. As such he would not permit himself to be killed in order to save the train passengers. Should you alter the train's track?

[@valteixeira8194]

Kant defines what counts as a person in terms of their capacity for rationality. This means that any being not capable of rationality lacks dignity and thus we don’t have the same moral obligation to not treat them as mere means. One of the significant implications for this is how it affects our duties to nonhuman animals. Kant’s ideas would imply that we can treat such animals however we wish. In terms of animal rights, whether animals have any rights (for example the right not to be mistreated, harmed, or killed), Kant would say that since they are not rational, they have no rights. Kant does argue that it’s wrong to treat animals cruelly. This duty is derived from a person’s duty to himself. As Kant writes in The Metaphysics of Morals: “With regard to the animate but non-rational part of creation, violent and cruel treatment of animals is far more intimately opposed to a human being’s duty to himself, and he has a duty to refrain from this; for it dulls his shared feelings of their suffering and so weakens and gradually uproots a natural predisposition that is very serviceable to morality in one’s relations with other people” (6:443). That is, he is saying that mistreating animals will dull one’s compassion towards other living beings and thus make one a less virtuous person. He is clear that “the human being is authorized to kill animals quickly (without pain),” which indicates that killing animals for food, or even hunting them for sport, is permissible, so long as it is done humanely. However, he does partially disapprove of using animals for medical experiments: “agonizing physical experiments for the sake of mere speculation, when the end could be achieved without these, are to be abhorred.” This passage was probably directed at the then-common practice of animal vivisection, but his words would suggest that animal experiments for medical purposes, in cases when the goal is to save human lives, might perhaps be permissible. Though we should emphasize that this duty to not mistreat animals is only because of the harm one might do to oneself by this cruelty to animals: “it is always only a duty of the human being to himself” (6:443). Source: press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/ Worth noting is that in your example, since the child is incapable of understanding sacrifice, they could also not consent to the adults on the train making the sacrifice to save their life either. Thus their opinion would have no moral force.

[@lemonstealinghorsdoeuvre]

This could have been much more succinct. _"utilitarian morality is what the government does, Kant teaches what citizens should do"_

[@isadorabolzan8594]

I just love your videos. Thank you.

[@josecarrales2842]

That was awesome! Well expressed! Thank you!

[@heesook.9186]

Fabulous explanation. Thanks so much!

[@Т1000-м1и]

Man, there could be a philosophy course on the comments under these

[@nyet_maker7948]

I always find it interesting to find great philosophical Theories somehow in sentences in the bible in much simpler form (Theater others like you would want to be treated - in this case). Always wonder how smart the people were that wrote it, and what good if could have brought if not misused by politics/aka church.

[@miguelatkinson]

That's the golden rule and it's found in alot of religions and holy books besides the bible and Christianity

[@laserbrain7774]

People should not imagine that they will escape judgement if they rob people with a false prospectus any more than if they did so with a gun.

[@katlehomathe937]

Thank you! you explained in better than my professor.

[@DanielL143]

You would use a Tuna as a mere means to an end?

[@achrafabouras2118]

Can you review the ethics of care

[@slavamurygin4849]

Wonderful! I assume those two ways are applicable not only to the human interactions, but to anything we are doing. We are doing something "the right way" or "easier" or "less expensive" or ... etc.

[@SmallWetIsland]

Kant says "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." But if for Kant, morality is grounded in rationality, and individuals have a duty to act according to certain moral principles derived from reason and the categorical imperative is a guideline for determining the moral permissibility of actions... how does this square with Singer's observation that people are innately evil (or at least innately selfish) Does the biological imperative (Dawkins and his selfish gene) and Singer "evil nature theory" square with Kant's philosophical ideas of "correct" moral behaviour. Kant's theory of morality, based on rationality and duty, seems to presuppose that individuals can use reason to act in accordance with universal moral laws, irrespective of their inherent tendencies. Or am I missing something here.

[@kkndzocker]

Kant in seiner Muttersprache zu lesen ist wie eine Fremdsprache zu lesen. 🇩🇪

[@WanderingExistence]

Lol, this why I read a lot of summaries rather than base text.

[@Ratselmeister]

Nicht wirklich, er schreibt sehr klar.

[@kkndzocker]

Die Transzendental-Philosophie hat den Vorteil, aber auch die Verbindlichkeit, ihre Begriffe nach einem Prinzip aufzusuchen; weil sie aus dem Verstande, als absoluter Einheit, rein und unvermischt entspringen, und daher selbst nach einem Begriffe, oder Idee, unter sich zusammenhängen müssen. Ein solcher Zusammenhang aber gibt eine Regel an die Hand, nach welcher jedem reinen Verstandesbegriff seine Stelle und allen insgesamt ihre Vollständigkeit a priori bestimmt werden kann, welches alles sonst vom Belieben, oder vom Zufall abhängen würde.@@Ratselmeister

[@Ratselmeister]

@@kkndzocker Es wird einfacher wenn man es laut liest quasi als gesprochenes oder vorgetrageses Wort. Sobald du die Richtige Betonung gefunden finden hast, verstehst dies auch. Das beste ist natürlich du lässt es dir von jemanden vortragen also vorlesen, der es bereits verstanden hat.

[@calebwilliams586]

Ok but which version should I subscribe to

[@markilsemann950]

Off-topic, on the Singer vid. I'm sorry you had to endure bad comments, but on an intellectual note, acts vs. omissions is still a huge deal. I know Singer tries to get around it, but to no avail. I could get into detail, but I frankly don't have the time.

[@omarhatem4207]

Can we argue that utilitarianism itself is kind of a maxim that says "people can sometimes do bad things if it means that more good overall will happen" or smth like that. if that's true, I honestly think that everyone involved could -possibly- consent to this maxim. Doesn't that mean that Deontology permits utilitarianism? worse yet, doesn't that mean that deontology will permit anything if you're selective enough with the people involved ? great vid

[@protonneutron9046]

The best moral theory is natural human rights. It puts to rest ALL prior theories as obsolete and unworkable.

[@porlawright]

"The study of doody". I love the American accent 😂

[@phillylifer]

I love your energy.

[@michaelgibbons7014]

Great video, perfectly explained

[@dinosaurkin5093]

Turn on comments on the Peter Singer video

[@robokaos69]

Every time I watch a video in this format I'm left curious about the practice that goes into being adept at writing mirrored text.

[@elizabethcsicsery-ronay1633]

Joke, of course. But please stick to the main argument.

[@retrocool]

He made a video on this, “How this lightboard works”

[@retrocool]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJDHZWeYocaSfaM

[@robokaos69]

@@retrocool Oh cool I'll have to check that out. Thanks for the info friendo :)

[@ArexuRj]

So its like a Kantsent? Like a concious consent?

[@kompatybilijny9348]

What I got from that is that Utilitarianism is a philosophy for spineless people who want to feel morally superior to others because of their adherence to it. Meanwhile Deontology is all about spine and making the morally right decision no matter what. To be completely honest, I would've been very surprised if it DIDN'T come out of Germany. European civilisation always put more focus on what is actually right and not what will only appear right to others.

[@paulsmart4672]

The iron-hard spine it takes to believe as you're told to believe, to do as you're told to do, and to never think about what any of it means.

[@kompatybilijny9348]

@@paulsmart4672 "I gotta keep rambling on"

[@emilbonaduce387]

as a novice my simplistic takeback is that regarding the Jan 6 debacle, the majority agree with Kant, but about 1/3 agree with utilitarianism...am I right?

[@Golden_Dragons_bb8]

Hi Jeffrey. Great oration and keeping on subject. It's amazing how you avoid getting in the weeds. Is that passion or great editing?

[@LaurenBerns]

Thanks for this content. In English, think you mean to say "canal" instead of "panel." A canal is a man-made river, or ditch, often used to "channel" water from one place to another.

[@Koncs86]

Yo, turn the Singer comments back on! There's more than one problem with his argument, don't hide from them!