Kant # (1) (MORALITY, ETHICS & PHILOSOPHY LECTURES)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 12 сен 2024
- YouLectures - for the 'INFORMATION' 'MAKING' the 'NEWS'
This series has been uploaded following a request and information received that it was not easily available. If you are aware of a title on any subject which is not generally available, or can't be found on RUclips - Please contact us and we'll see if we can locate and then upload it.
YouLectures
I love Kant...he's so easy to understand!!
It is not hard to understand Kant with a great explanation such as yours! Finally, thanks to you, i understand Kant!!
hahah,it's funny that he says silly stuff that's funny,all in a dry voice XD thanks for the summation of Kant tho!
very good teacher, able to explain somewhat complex philosophical ideas in a funny but spot on manner
Thanks for the snapshot... and I think you did a good job blending some good finfo with an entertaining style... kudos, you've got some zing! Thx good stuff!
This is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
A good will is always good because a good will, on average, throughout the many decision one makes in ones life, is likely to produce a better overall, consequential effect, then someone who more often then not harbors a bad will.
May I suggest, "On liberty". I think John was more then understanding that you cannot know what will make other people happy (all the time, though much of the time you certainly can, or at least you can know what will make them unhappy).
If you act in according to your duties, because you want to be the most fulfilled, then your intentions are not in the right place, because you actions are ultimately seeking to benefit yourself and your state of mind.
Wow! You've helped a poor student today! Your intentions must be good! ;)
I was paraphrasing Kant. He said, in order for a action to be of moral worth, it should be done with no intention to benefit the actor.
Have to say consequential ethics of Bentham and Mills Utilitarianism makes a lot more sense. Kant's Idea that one with good intentions is doing right is obviously true to me as well but following law or duty like following ten commandments or not lieing are great guidelines but not always the right thing to do as it doesn't always make the most happiness and least pain possible. It is that intent thought out for results; that is where I find 'goodness'.
@Iloerk no, you should really make some deliberate pauses between sentences. to give people time to let a thought sicker in. every good speaker does that
@daobagua exactly right there.. And that's what drives us
Happiness is an emotional response created by our brains. The exact working are currently a study of neuroscience. But just because science has not specifically defined all the details of the process yet, does not mean that such a definition does not exist or that consequential ethics is any less important. If you want to hinge your entire defense of Kant vs consequentialism on the fact that we have yet to define a process, then you are kind of imitating a "god of the gaps" defense.
@dreamerwebdev Define happiness.
that should keep you busy for the rest of your life
Do you see what I'm saying? we dont really promise, we promise-but-understand-that-under-reasonable-circumstances-that-is-ok-to-break-it. if we called this a almost-promise, and that was everyones understanding of the matter, then it is consistent when we break the almost-promise (because we understand you would also break it under special circumstances) so all is consistent, and therfore its moral to break promises under special circumstances
I read Mill's book Utilitarianism and didn't like it a bit. It has the same flaw, it talks about happiness as if it's easily definable, ignoring the fact, which has slapped every emotionally sensitive person in the face at least several times in their lives, that you cannot know what makes other people happy.
i myself believe that kant has it right.
@Iloerk I don't think happiness needs a lot of defining, it is goodness, pleasure, and the opposite of pain and suffering. If you need it defined look it up in a dictionary. I'm not a dictionary and I'm not Mill's book 'Utilitarianism' so perhaps you read them if you need them defined and a clue to what I mean as if it isn't obvious to even the dull minded.
philosophers attempt to abstract everything in a inapropriate way. For example kant argues its wrong to break a promise, because if everyone broke a promise, there would be no such thing as a promise. But when human beings make promise, we don't take the literal translation - 100% comitment, instead we accept under special circumstances its ok to be broken. so when we promise we dont really mean to promise, therefore isnt it consistent since we all acknowledge that?
@Diosukekun I agree, although the lectures sound interesting, you definitely rush it for no reason, I cannot focus, and why on earth you conclude that something is confusing? perhaps to some it is not... anyway, some lessons of speech are greatly recommended...
@dreamerwebdev Also, if I think about my own happiness I know it has appeared under very diverse conditions and there's almost no formula for it, and that recreating the conditions and "re-living" it makes it duller each time. I also know that my happiness has a lot more to do with what I do than what others do to me. What good things others do to me can be categorized as luck and that only gives a very short-lived and dull version of happiness.
Philosophy is painful....OMG
@Diosukekun You joking? This is fairly slow, as it should be. I agree about the microphone though
what microphone are you using to record this lecture.
I might recommend getting an H4N recorder ($200) best quality for lowest cost.
The lecture is brilliant. The idea of providing transcripts is ideal for those who are partially deaf or those who like to know the spellings of difficult terms. However, the transcriber does not seem to know even the name "Kant". "Kant" is misspelt several times. There are too many embarrassing spelling mistakes in this transcription. If the transcript was not done by machines, please allow volunteers to edit the transcripts of philosophy lectures. Please delete this post after the editing.
@dreamerwebdev My criticism is centered on that we cannot know if something inflicts pain or causes happiness, because it's so subjective and different from case to case.
Cutting the arm of a person that cannot feel pain is still unethical, for an example.
Can you give me an e.g. of some behavior that causes no pain that may not be ethical? Behavior seems to me would be good, neutral or bad ethically. I'm not sure how to respond to that. As far as finding happiness I think I know what you mean, but doesn't seem so hard in Utilitarianism to simply give an educated 'guess' (guess because we only know the future to a degree) and know that most likely if I do this it's going to be a good thing or bad thing and in some cases not matter if you act.
anyway, does anyone know of a good documentary about kant that I should watch? I dont know if one exists
in which book does Kant propose said scenarios?
tony gutierrez Kala loda book
Why is cutting an arm of someone who can not feel pain unethical? Obviously we can imagine that it is because it would risk them of infection, or debilitate their ability. But what if you do something to someone and it has no negative effect at all on them, is it unethical then? Why?
But there's issues with kants ideas here.. Our mentalities are formed differently, depending on where you come from and how you lived your life..
@dreamerwebdev I looked it up in my dictionary. Happy - fortunate; having, expressing or enjoying pleasure or contentment, pleased, appropriate, felicitous.
How do you formulate this into a universally applicable ethic-system? What makes everyone consider themselves fortunate, what makes everyone pleased and content? Ok, formulating absence of pain and suffering is of course more easy, but is every behaviour ethical as long as it doesn't inflict pain?
Since you removed your comment, I am taking it that you actually went and read by comments on this subject. I strongly disagree with Kant and is categorical imperative. I am a consequentialist (which as you already agree, is really the only sensible position on this subject). Saying that an action can be moral despite being overwhelmingly harmful is insane.
Typical of the usual thoughtless assumption: existentialism (people assumed to be ultimately responsible for themselves, though we don't create ourselves, and we have no responsibility to whatever did create us, if anything did). Since Kant's 'duty' idea is based upon 'free choice', without very carefully qualifying this concept, his idea about 'duty' is rife with flaws. Very poorly thought out.
Gosh, you read the text too fast, were you in a hurry or what?
you are doing it wrong. you lack a sense of pace. you just say a, then b, then c, without worrying about how it'd feel to the listener. don't rush it. you should also get a better microphone with, say, a pop filter