Kant - Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals (Ch 2)

The continuation and conclusion of our discussion of Immanuel Kant's "Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals," in which we look at the 1st, 2nd, & 3rd (and 4th?) formulations of the Categorical Imperative, and try to understand how they all hold together in a single unified idea.

[@suricrasia]

remarkably good lecture, thanks for uploading!

[@adiefrat589]

I am learning for my exams and stubbled upon your video ! you are such an amazing teacher !!! patient, kind but also very sharp and presice ! keep up the good work!

[@mrsusan9404]

Thanks for uploading :)

[@nicholasmackelprang8385]

So if the concept of property is a norm, and weather or not stealing is categorically wrong is contingent on the norm of property then the categorical imperative is itself subject to the hypothetical imperative. Here we cannot say, like in the first critique that the totality of conditions is a mere idea because it is precisely through human action that any such norm arises. In other words, all norms are concrete and the totality of norms cannot be a transcendtal idea. If it was a transcendtal idea, we would have no obligation as to cognizing the norms under which the categorical imperative is contingent upon. Anyways I don’t know if I’m saying quite makes sense but this video prompted that thought for me and I’ll probably explore it in more detail at another time.

[@nicholasmackelprang8385]

Well ok maybe the categorical imperative isn’t subject to the hypothetical imperative but statements understood under the former are a part of a hypothetical judgement.

[@Theydonotcare]

Thank you

[@MacSmithVideo]

Kant's Categorical Imperative is so dumb it makes me think he was just trolling his audience.