Kant's Moral Theory (Part 2 of 2)

[@4890chula]

You are a life saver!i wish you were my professor . It made alot of sense! thank you

[@DJMizzy]

You have a such a comfortable to listen to voice, and made this easy for me to understand.

[@MariaMaterDeiEst]

You should read Karol Wojtyła's book "Love and Responsibility" for a synthesis of Kant and virtue ethics. He's technically speaking about romantic love, but he presents the moral background for how to love someone based on an adaption of Kant and virtue ethicists like Aquinas.

[@moodyblues179]

awesome!!!!! great video. really appreciate it. helped me heaps!!!

[@ledopmi]

Can you clarify a question about universalization? Do the details of the maxim matter? Example: Abortion universalized would contradict itself because if we willed that all women have abortions, then eventually there would no longer be any women left to have abortions. However, if we are more specific with the maxim, such as: “When a woman finds herself in a particular situation, she can have an abortion, but not in other situations”. If this were to be universalized, then only women in that particular situation would be willed to have abortions so there is no contradiction. If we are allowed to be very specific with maxims, then we could potentially justify anything under certain circumstances. It seems to me that the specifics make no difference, just like what Kant says about lying. It doesn't matter why you lie, it is always wrong. Applied to abortion, it doesn't matter why you abort your baby, abortion is always wrong. So if our maxim is “When a woman becomes pregnant and feels she cannot afford to care for a child, she can have an abortion” the universalization should not be “We will that all women who become pregnant and feel they cannot afford to care for a child will have an abortion”. Instead, the universalization should be simply “We will that all women who become pregnant have abortions.” The reason is irrelevant, just like the reason we may choose to lie is irrelevant or the reason we wish to boil a baby is irrelevant. Imagine the maxim “If I find myself in a situation where I will starve to death unless I eat this baby I was caring for….”

[@robertparrott7068]

Thank you for outlining Kant's morality in easy to understand format. I disagree with the conclusion, that virtue ethics must be "supplemented" into Kant's ethics to account for inconsistencies or incompleteness (the example of lying to the Nazis). Deceit is not inherently wrong. It is very often /correlated/ with immorality, but of course correlation is not causation. What makes deceit morally wrong is the intention behind the deceit (which is usually manipulation). My "duty" is not at all to give the most... accurate accounts of reality to any person... that might ask (or that might not ask), my duties are to ask myself: is the impetus behind my action that of 1) pride (self-superiority)? e.g., Aryanism, racism, nationalism, etc. 2) greed (excess)? 3) wrath (anger)? 4) envy? i.e., sorrow for another's achievements 5) lust (craving)? e.g., sex, power, wealth 6) gluttony (wastefulness, overconsumption)? 7) laziness? i.e., failure to utilize one's talents and gifts The "seven sins" are a perfect (or as close to perfect as I've ever seen) outline of the prime responsibilities associated with the benefit of intelligence. Artificiality can be used productively, and it can be used detrimentally. If one takes on the duties of being charitable, patient, kind, chaste, temperant, diligent, and perhaps most of all humble, then dubious concepts like lying, taking a life, etc. can be analyzed objectively without obvious loopholes like mercy killing or lying to somebody by telling them they are more physically attractive than you might strictly believe.

[@josephcollar5987]

My thoughts are that we are born dualistic by nature, we must receive as a baby to physically survive. But we dont consciously know we were given life...and we, (i just believe) must give to everyone or everything that gives to us whether constructed to our mind and go beyond that categorized maxim he describes...does that make any sense??

[@gonzogil123]

2:42min Yeah, but this is a consistent misinterpretation, systematic, done "You cannot universalize it because_______" then a reason, or, the consequence is given. So, to say that Kant does not deal with it even though it is constantly misinterpreted is wrong. What he is trying to do is deal with Hume´s dictum "reason is a slave of the passions" if so then how where could you find a free moral act? Well, if we agree with Hume then not at the level of the passions since they will make us its slave. Since that is the given then free moral acts, not "oughts from is", cannot be derived from nature on the latter two counts. Therefore he seems to be exploring what moral faculties are we equipped with a-priori, just as in the case of pure reason. The latter is applied in theology, or, ancient ethics. But if morality is decoupled from theology (its ground being pure reason) and ancient ethics then we may explore this terrain, this innate equipment, and proceed to see at what point this a-priori space not limited, or, derived from sense-data may generate in terms of moral choices where we are not as slaves to the passions.

[@aaronkoh4567]

How might I apply kants principle of universality to abortion If my Maxim is: woman who are pregnant but do not wish to carry on the pregnancy can abort in excerising their rights to choose I can imagine this being applicable to all, do does that mean it passes the contradiction test?

[@tom09121]

what would kant's thoughts on poverty be?

[@vishal8271]

awesome sir..thanku. very much... sir if you can cover more philosophers... ty

[@M14108]

I need help in the suicide part !! I didn’t understand it

[@Livphom]

I don't understand :(((( I've been up till 6 am trying to understand

[@veromina9156]

I'm in a philosophy class and am having the hardest time with Kant. This video helped a lot but I still feel uncomfortable with my grasp of his theory. What if, you altered the maxim to: "I should lie in cases where doing so saves a life, mine or someone else's." And then universally applied: "Everyone can lie when doing so saves a life." There aren't any resulting logical contradictions from this universalized maxim, right? So Kant would say it is morally permissible to lie when it allows you to save a life?

[@veromina9156]

Oh. My apologies I wrote this half way through the video because I didn't want to lose my train of thought. But after watching the 2nd half, am I right to say that pure Kantian reasoning would assert that lying, even to save a life, would be immoral because Kant doesn't believe in conditionals? But isn't lying in order to receive some personal gain a conditional? (As opposed to the generic act of lying.) Also, is there any Kantian response to the contradiction of absolute values? Like you stated -not lying vs not saving a life (when you can via lying). Does Kant believe in a hierarchy of moral goods? (i.e. lying is less bad than letting someone die)

[@nialv22]

"I should lie in cases where doing so saves a life, mine or someone else's." If this were a universal law, you wouldn't be able to lie to save a life because the murderer would know you were lying.

[@iranjackheelson]

can i ask which institution you teach at?

[@gonzogil123]

10;12min But you could universalize not being dutiful to propagandized Nazis that embody "being enslaved to an ungrounded military leader" in order to treat persecuted Jewish people as ends in themselves? What binds you to allow others to treat others as the most of absolute means for their capitalist ends? Would it not be easy to universalize not being obedient to Nazis? The UN charter, and human rights have universalized this. I do not think it wrong.

[@jarrodyuki7081]

kant doesn't even follow his own morals.