What is the Categorical Imperative? | Immanuel Kant Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

This video goes over what the Kant's categorical imperative is, what it means, and 2 different formulations of it.
A categorical imperative (as opposed to a hypothetical imperative) is a commanding rule that must be followed not for some external purpose but because the act itself is good. This is differentiated from something like consequentialist ethics which focuses on the consequences of an act rather than the act itself.
There are a good handful of different formulations of the categorical imperative given in the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals. The universality formulation states that we shouldn't act unless we will that the maxim of our act become a universal law. The means/ends formulation states that we should view humanity as an end and not simply as a means.
Back in college I struggled with the means formulation because it seemed like we treat others as means almost daily. It's impossible not to unless you live off the grid and are 100% self sufficient. But Kant isn't saying we can't treat others as means, just not merely as means. We need to also respect each others autonomy and consider the whole of humanity when acting.
#philosophy #immanuelkant #ethics
Instagram: @amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: [e-mail]

[@arvinpillai681]

Legendary intro LMAO

[@jayyyen]

FINALLY IVE BEEN WAITING FOR YEARS NOW I CAN FINALLY

[@PhilosophyToons]

WHAT

[@jayyyen]

@@PhilosophyToons YEYA

[@Gflock_]

Underrated channel ❤

[@paintingsbygm944]

Massively.

[@Wahid_4770]

Thank you so much for such an elaboration on Categorical Imperative. Really helped a lot 🙏🙏🙏 Schopenhauer does seem to be pointing towards a hidden form of consequentialism within Kant's deontological framework!

[@PhilosophyToons]

I'll have to read more Schopey boy then

[@kneeshiddho]

At first, I thought that again KZbin recommended me another wired ad... 😂😂😂 EPIC...

[@muhammadabdullah4871]

Great hook to the video lol. It worked on me. Enjoyed the video , keep up the hardwork!

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thank you!

[@darksydeeee]

I forgot the critic of Nietzsche about it in his book Beyond good and evil it's an interessing one

[@kasambakazembe6254]

Wow!

[@caglabatur]

thank you for this❤

[@PhilosophyToons]

thanks for watching

[@borisstanisic9252]

Can you do the famous 4 examples by Kant? You said that you are in for the first formulation (universalization), but im not quite sure that his 4 examples (1.always tell the truth 2. Never end your own life 3. fullfill your potential 4. allways help others in a dire situation) are all convincing...

[@PhilosophyToons]

That could be a good video in the future

[@shannonwells6296]

Thank you for your hard work!!

[@PhilosophyToons]

Thank you for watching!

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

I think, that by means, kant implies the duty not to manipulate others (in a negative sense - frauding them - a positive honest exchange is treating the other as an ends, whilst a fraudulent exchange, where you seek a discount by negotiating with the other, avoiding the honest price, is treating other as a means rather than as an end. The end would be personal enrichment, and the negotiation with the other, is the means with which you obtained yout purpose - you would be treating the other as a means for your end of personal enrichment. If you were honest the other person would be treated as an end which would be mutual enrichement, which includes ones own enrichment. The other would be included in your end and would thus be an end in itself. - Logic -). The lesson is that in personal exchanges do not seek demand and supply price, but seek to pay the merchant the Honest price (whatever that is even if it is higher thant the market price - treating the merchant as an end). Semantics sometimes can be confusing - if you go for the essence of what the person sought to say you get the gist.

[@PhilosophyToons]

Who determines the honest price though? Might that be the agreed upon price by both parties even if haggling is involved?

[@lorenzocapitani8666]

@@PhilosophyToons yea - the honest price is the problem - I go by instinct - if I feel I am paying too little, I pay more rather than negotiating for less. Honest. Totally irrational but more ethical than simply trying to win the negotiation or compromising. The honest price is NOT precise. Honest. You also have to be practical - you simply cant play this game on supermarket products. But you can choose to pay more by going to a small store that gives a more honest return than buying at a supermarket. The choice between biological foodstuff and foodstuff that is exploitational, that comes from intensive farming and economies of scale, is a perfect egsample. Honest. You can choose to pay more by going to the biological store. Much more primitive than the legittimate legal method of demand and supply, but more honest. Honesty is a value, not a virtue. There is a difference from the JUST(virtue: justice) price born from haggling and the Honest (value) price born from ottorgation and liberality. Virtues impose results, values attract results but don't necessarily secure them (other values: family, friendship, goodness, etc). Soft power (value) versus 'harsh' power (virtue).

[@Jabranalibabry]

Lol loves the intro

[@healthymealthy775]

😆 🤣