Kant's Categorical Imperative | Highlights Ep.46

[@craigsteinkamp12]

The density of Kant’s work required me to read it at least two to three times to really parse out everything. I really enjoyed this short of Kant and his imperative.

[@wisenber]

When asked if one were hiding any one, merely say "I Kant answer that."

[@jonathanbolding4164]

I came across the Moral Imperative several months ago. Quite illuminating and required me to examine my internal self.-

[@genclikonboard]

If Kant thinks that making false promises in case of need is wrong because in such circumstances no one will trust each other and the society will collapse, he would be a consequentialist. The real reason is that if I universalize making false promises, the concepts of promise and trust will be meaningless, which indicates a contradiction. What makes something a "promise" is the reliance on keeping it. If it is not kept, universally, the concept itself will be in contradiction with its actuality, which is unacceptable for Kant. Don't confuse it with the consequences likely to happen.

[@jacobh674]

You missed a few parts of the logic there. Consequentialism says “because lying on a universal scale causes bad results [eg societal collapse], it is immoral”. This would be Rule Utilitarianism to be specific. Kant has a few more steps the reach the same conclusion that lying is morally wrong. Kant says “any maxim should be able to be applied on a universal scale, if it truly is in accordance with moral law (because by definition it is categorical). Since lying is not possible in a universal application, it logically can not be consistent with the categorical imperative.” He uses his logic in the opposite order to prove it. When one creates a maxim based on the moral law, that maxim should be as universal as the moral law itself.

[@jacobh674]

Kant has no problem with the definition of a promise being self contradictory as you claimed. Why? Probably because a promise is all about the intention or the purported intention. Not about perception. So the idea that a promise is no longer a promise if it is not believed is not only incorrect but not Kant’s reasoning here.

[@pamelaferreira4594]

If one doesn’t do the Moral Action, the the person will suffer guilt . To suppress the guilt the person will drink, do drugs or become more evil just to cover the guilt. Failing to do a moral act will eventually destroy the one who fails to be moral.

[@whousa642]

Extremely well said. Very complete statement. Bravo How have gotten your knowledge?

[@younggrasshopper3531]

@@whousa642 I don’t know how he knows but he knows

[@joebrooks4448]

But how many innocent moral people will be damaged or destroyed in the meantime? One of the basic problems of Communist "Modern Philiosophy".

[@DavidUrbinaFitness]

In short you need to practice "right action" and sovereignty within, and come to the realization that you are a autonomous being 💡

[@syourke3]

Kant never even defines what morality is. He starts out he telling us that “there is nothing that is absolutely good except a good will”. But he never tells us he means by “good will”.

[@mernistasphes]

Kant very clearly defined goodwill and what it constitutes

[@jacobh674]

You gotta be joking. How many of his books have you read?

[@jackiegrawe_art]

Thank you for articulating this point so well. It was a tough one. This is no excuses, radical honesty. I’d like to learn more about this Kant guy.

[@tonyfoglio6745]

I highly recommend taking the online course from Hillsdale, "Introduction to Western Philosophy."

[@JosephTruelson]

Kant is the greatest!

[@gregwilkin6565]

Thank you for sharing. :)

[@YouTubeHandlesAreMoronic]

[raises hand] Lowly public school graduate here, but in regards to 1:58, if it is a Moral action worthy of esteem to sacrifice one's life to save another, how is it NOT a moral action to sacrifice one's personal devotion to a moral code to save someone by lying to the Nazi's?

[@ludwigkirchner08]

Did they teach you that nazi is a pejorative term in public school? Secondly, lying is immoral. You can't be moral by being immoral. He answered that question. Hence his statement.

[@ChetAllen]

If you apply the Categorical Imperative (Extrude maxim as natural law) according to the video to this situation you can infer the act is immoral. Arg 1. Value judgments cannot be a factor in morality as they cannot be universally applied. Nazi's believe they are doing good and so does the person who's hiding Jews. Arg 2. Using the Maxim, "Lying to get what you want is ok" is clearly not applicable as it would result in societal distrust and ultimately societal breakdown. (See current political climate) What this video doesn't include is Kant's "Unjust constraint" argument in which the immoral act of coercion on the part of the Nazi negates the moral principle of duty from the person protecting the Jew. So, to lie to a Nazi about hiding a Jew is trumped by the demand for truth by force/threat of force and is not considered immoral.

[@Archer335]

KZbinHandlesAreMoronic, Excellent question. My thoughts: Lying to the Nazis as many times as one had to (if one believed it could work), would be fine, no matter what Kant said. So, if one thought they could actually succeed in saving those Jews by lying to the murderous psychopaths (Nazis) and tools of murderous psychopaths (also Nazis), then they should.

[@jacobh674]

Why? Because this guy in the video gave an awful explanation and misstated what it means to be moral. Morality requires that one a) acts in accordance with moral law, and b) one is motivated by respect or awe of the moral law. Kant believes inventions and motives matter. The lying to Nazis example is wrong because i) it doesn’t comply with the moral law and ii) it’s not motivated by respect for that law. It’s a very good question. I have heard many stupider questions asked in my non public school philosophy class discussion sections. This misunderstanding was completely due to the awful explanation in the video.

[@monicagarciarojas-e9v]

Very interesting… a while ago, long before seeing this, I was reflecting on what we are and how we think; “man lives as he thinks.” Early this morning I saw a man walking barefoot on the grass, a beautiful act of freedom, spontaneity, integration of his nature, with nature, creation. Morality implies integration, truth from the inside out. Reality is a utopia in generalities because it is different for each individual according to how he thinks and everything leads him to become convinced, even if conviction is not involved. So, morality speaks when the heart hurts, in an incorrect response or reaction, the soul warns, it lets us know if we are acting well or badly. If it hurts we are good and there is an inclination towards honesty, if it does not hurt and we are indifferent, then there is no morality. Everything depends on what is possessed, to the extent that you have you give, and you cannot give what you do not have, that is why morality is the surname of the soul. 🕊️☑️🙏🏻

[@maryj9897]

Kant couldn't see the simplicity of what was under his nose.

[@Raymond.Butler]

I am a veteran and you missed the entire point of your example. If those people are found, of course they are lost so they deserve no further consideration as far as this example. If they get caught, YOU are going to suffer terribly. And morality does have its masters. Just as duty, morality can not live in a vacuum. Morality is a duty you owe yourself, in your actions and treatment of others.

[@gildasdias8642]

magnifique

[@user-ys9to2ie7k]

The problem with this assumption - Kant didn't take it back far enough, he had to go back to when there was a lot of grunting and pointing going on because good morals are instilled from the day you're born by the ones that care for you, and if those morals are vague the individual is more likely to waiver¿`_

[@markwrede8878]

Kant's reciprocity is unfulfilled by the mutual extortion Smith identified as the action of capital in economy.

[@lucasblanc1295]

In the real world our ability to process morality is not the same, it's tied directly to mental habits, will power and our awareness of the situation. We rarely have such clear-cut propositions like that. That's not quite being at the edge-of-chaos, it just tends towards order by the need of simplification to create the theory. But I get it, we have to at least define the boundaries of the problem to see the gradient of possibilities from one point to the other. And then depending on the situation, depending on the point of view of each individual, we will plot areas within that space of how those actions were perceived by each individual. I mean, you might as well at this point throw in other value systems and we have a multi-dimentional space. For the indoctrinated nazi that was an immoral action to lie about the jews, since it goes against their value system. But let me save ourselves here: Some moral systems are much more wholesome/solid than others, some systems have more consistency, less gaps and execeptions and overall lead to more positive outcomes to EVERYONE including the individual. Of course at some places of that space there will be situations where someone saving themselves and 10 not surviving might be seen as positive or negative. In some situations, you can't make everyone happy, and you pick the least bad of many options.

[@lucasblanc1295]

I know I'm not being precise like a philosopher, but I hope anyone reading gets the idea. i.e.: If I tell about the jews at this circustance that's a net negative, but overall not lying leads to better results since it translates better to more circumstances across more people. There is never any clear cut solution, since the world around us and our competing desires is always changing, we need as much requisite variety in the controller than there is on the system being controlled. Most times certain tactics (i.e. not lying) leads to better results. The lives of people are above our tactic to not lie, it would be ineffective to our greater values, therefore the agent doesn't use that tactic to save those lives.

[@donaldclifford5763]

Kant seems like a German variation of Can't.

[@blisstickmystic]

We are playing with broken shards already

[@jpkubalak]

I may be missing something, but this sounds like an attempt to define morality completely devoid of its religious component. We don't just self govern. For example, "Thou shall not kill" has never been a thing throughout history prior to religion. I know this is just highlights on a lecture, but am I missing the point?

[@lllr179]

I think Kant became a Christian! This is just an introduction, but very useful for learning more about the thought process of many non- believers.

[@jacobh674]

Well yes. That’s the entire point Kant was making. He was Christian though. But his life was dedicated to defining morality completely a priori and derived from only rational thought. So yeah religion had no part in it. Also not killing other people as an aspect of morality didn’t just become a thing when Moses got the tablets from God. Cain killing Abel was wrong.

[@owlnyc666]

"Thou shalt not lie is a command, it a suggestion. It is a divine command-imperative. ". Or it is a suggestion that depends on the situation and the person's ability reason(rationalize) when it is o. kay Sometimes it is okay rationalize , disobey the command against srealing, and even killing another human beings. 🤔😉

[@brucesmith1544]

that's not the commandment. it's "don't bear false witness against your neighbor", which is a very particular kind of lie.

[@benquinneyiii7941]

Possibly?

[@merlinwizard1000]

2nd, 2 August 2022

[@benquinneyiii7941]

What if everybody?

[@brucesmith1544]

Was this edited and stitched together? Seems very disjointed. Maybe just trying to cram too much into a short clip.

[@grantbartley483]

Kant's ethical analysis is clearly wrong, by reductio. The fundamental ethical principle, I think, should be 'the lesser of two evils', or on some occasions, 'the greater of two goods'.

[@TreeLuvBurdpu]

I wonder how many people ratted out Jews to Nazis simply because they believed Kant's garbage.

[@Portekberm]

Kant would have universalised the act of imprisoning the Jew and not handed them over. Kant is misunderstood by being taken as a materialist, certainly here.

[@JosephTruelson]

Everyone always seems to bring up this analogy and assumes that's what Kant would hand over the Jew. But this is hardly clear from his writings, and you can still be a Kantian and not never lie. It's not easy being a Kantian, but this isn't the best line of attack.

[@robhaythorne4464]

Konvoluted Kant. He made no sense.

[@grantbartley483]

He's actually a genius, a philosopher's philosopher. But he is tortuously difficult to follow, being such a bad communicator (Aspergers', perhaps). Apparently his non-philosophical writing is pretty clear, and it's better in the German. But he's wrong about the lie issue.

[@msbae]

Kant was often way too much of a Sperg for his own good.

[@whousa642]

How can I give this 1000 thumbs down. Kant is evil and root of all of our ills today.

[@christopherlewis1315]

Monty Python taught me Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.

[@fsirjyy147]

Why give the video a thumbs down. He is teaching you about him. If you watch the course he and others are going though most of the biggest western philosophers including Plato, Aristotle and their ideas and how they influenced the world more specifically the West. Its a great course. Don’t punish Hinsdale.

[@whousa642]

@@fsirjyy147 he is putting a good face on Kant. The professor gets 1000 thumbs down for doing a bad job. I am punishing the foolish professor.

[@viktorpaulr2e]

The point raised initially about hiding Jews from Nazi’s was never revisited. This left a gaping hole in my understanding of Kant’s Categorical Imperative as you have attempted to explain it. This is both philosophically and practically irresponsible, and thus, disturbing to me.

[@hcp0scratch]

The Nazi guard vs Jew-hider example is poor. It is "categorically imperative" to resist tyranny and help protect the innocent. Perhaps those WW2 era silent Germans were an example of this professor's interpretation of Kant. Herd mentality to merely fit in.

[@belisariussmith9095]

The funny thing is that you gave yourself the answer in your own response. The correct moral action would have been to not lie, and also to "resist" the guards if they attempted to arrest those inside, in other words, to "protect the innocent". The example is perfect 👌

[@hcp0scratch]

@@belisariussmith9095 "Resist" the NAZI guards??? That would be suicidal and letting down the Jews you were meant to protect., further proving this to be a poor example. By that thinking, if I was a POW, I should give the enemy EVERYTHING I know if they ask, and just "fight back".

[@etcomehome39]

I disagree with Kant. We answer to the source higher than ourselves!

[@gavingleemonex3898]

The fact that you're chewing on what Kant would've thought about the pogrom tells me that none of you have any object permanence.

[@HenrySosenite]

His philosophy is nothing but false dilemmas. At least Descartes believed in reality.

[@syourke3]

Kant’s categorical imperative is obviously wrong. Morality is not based on duty, maxims, laws or principles. The value of any action cannot be adequately evaluated without regard to probable consequences. Even the secular law is full of exceptions based on competing interests and values. Kant is simply wrong.

[@TweezerShred]

You make a lot of assumptions

[@syourke3]

@@TweezerShred Like what?

[@TweezerShred]

I mean your very first definition of morality is wrong. Get a dictionary 😢

[@TweezerShred]

a system of values, normative rules, or principles according to which intentions or behaviours are judged to be good or bad, right or wrong -

[@TweezerShred]

😂 I know what you are actually saying is right. I'm trolling. But how would you know besides it being categorically obvious.