Thank you so much for uploading this lecture. It was clear, concise and has helped me more than the own lectures I attend at university. Your lectures have saved me more than once. Grateful for your contributions.
Kant's teachings on the ethical rightness of an action being based on motivation and a good will seems quite reminiscent of pietistic / puritan ethics, in which the rightness / moral goodness of one's actions is based on the rightness of one's motives and of the disposition of one's will toward God. His doctrine, at least as presented here, especially where God is replaced by duty, seems like a transposition of pietistic morals into a non-theistic / abstractly metaphysical realm.
Brilliant lecture in Kant's deontology, that is how it should be taught coz many people shoot Kant in the head for his moral absolutism before trying to underpin why and where did he come up with that. Kudos to your patience Professor.
"What matters is not what I do, but why I do it" that's what you said at 42:41. so that means it's right to lie to save my friend's life? Or it's not right to lie and lying is always wrong?
This is just a great lecture. Thank you so much. I was having the hardest time reading this paper to the point that I was stuck on each paragraph trying to understand what Kant really meant. this lesson is great and it actually makes Kant legible. Would you have any recommendation for secular philosophers who studied metaethics?
a good lecture. but unless I've misunderstood, Kant says that moral principles can only be produced a priori, because no single instance of an event is enough to make a solid conclusion as to the underlying principle governing that instance, which seems true enough, but is it not also true that while moral principles may be produced a priori they can only be confirmed a posteriori? Kant would seem to say no, since as long as an act is carried out in order to fulfil one's duty in accordance with the categorical imperative, said act is moral. however that seems to expose an obvious weakness of the theory, which makes the theory rigid and brittle, the most obvious example that demonstrates this is as follows: if lying is wrong, there is a categorical imperative to avoid lying, regardless of the consequences. even if the person you are lying to is a nazi officer who is inquiring as to the whereabouts of some jewish refugees who are hiding in your basement. in such a situation the actor would be obligated to tell the truth. this might be an over-simplification and/or a straw-man argument but this is the first objection that came to mind after listening to you speak. a potential solution would be to combine the deontological ethics outlined here by Kant with a form of utilitarian ethics, such that there is a categorical imperative that compels one to act in a way that produces more good than harm, when one is reasonably able to do so.
7:10min But does the analogy with gravitation work even though in the critique for pure reason he is reacting to Hume, and in the practical reason he still seems to be answering Hume on being unable to derive an "ought" from an "is" as well as "reason being a slave of the passions" hence the need to distance oneself from the limits of identifying in excess with pathological objects.
What he is saying is that in order to abolish lying forever on this earth, we all must lie all the time so that no one will believe anyone any more and then lying will no longer work and then lying will be a thing of the past.
17:05min It is when sense-date does not bring with it a set of categories. It will not speak human: hence scientific theories. That is the meaning of a-priori. It does not mean that Kant does not believe there is no empirical world. He just points to the limit of the amount of information derived from sense-data.
Thank you for the video. It is greatly helpful to me :)). But do you mind clarifying some doubts for me? I feel there is some sort of inconsistency from 32' to 34'. In Kant's view, what determines the nature (whether good or bad) of an action, is solely based on the intention, or the will, regardless of the outcomes/consequences. But why would Kant wholeheartedly agree with the statement "The end does not justify the means"? To me, the two do not seem to be talking about the same thing. And I feel the example of ending world hunger by stealing contradicting to Kant's view, because in that case, my intention would be to end world hunger (which is a good will), then if I take Kant's view, I should be doing a good thing, even if I do it by stealing from Bill Gates. Please help me with this confusion. Thank you so much!!
Yes, thats correct, please go ahead and steal from Bill G to fix the world's hunger problem. Lol I am sure Kant would approve of it and judge would rule according to your 'good intentions and not by the law. You could probably keep some small portion for yourself too, its only fair you get some reward for your good deed. Lol Good luck :)
I don't see how someone could ever conceptualize any idea of 'something' without reference to sensory data. Every thought you have comes about with a visual, auditory, sensory memory of some sort. Everything is in reference to something, yin and yang. Kant was on a fools errand.
Solid content, but if one is not interested in this subject s/he could easily fall asleep. After 5 minutes of listening to this presentation, it could easily become background noise as one daydreams of being somewhere else.
![Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals [SUMMARY] by Immanuel Kant](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Czk_co-2m4I/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you so much for uploading this lecture. It was clear, concise and has helped me more than the own lectures I attend at university. Your lectures have saved me more than once. Grateful for your contributions.
Thank you for taking the time to record and uploading your lecture.
Øscar from Univ. of Pittsburgh
Kant's teachings on the ethical rightness of an action being based on motivation and a good will seems quite reminiscent of pietistic / puritan ethics, in which the rightness / moral goodness of one's actions is based on the rightness of one's motives and of the disposition of one's will toward God. His doctrine, at least as presented here, especially where God is replaced by duty, seems like a transposition of pietistic morals into a non-theistic / abstractly metaphysical realm.
God Bless You!!
You are an excellent instructor/Teacher!
Thank you.
I thought of this idea yesterday and then looked it up and saw Kant beat me to it.
Brilliant lecture in Kant's deontology, that is how it should be taught coz many people shoot Kant in the head for his moral absolutism before trying to underpin why and where did he come up with that. Kudos to your patience Professor.
Great lecture, and great pacing.
"What matters is not what I do, but why I do it"
that's what you said at 42:41.
so that means it's right to lie to save my friend's life? Or it's not right to lie and lying is always wrong?
Thanks for a great lecture.Cant wait to see part 2 and 3.
This is just a great lecture. Thank you so much. I was having the hardest time reading this paper to the point that I was stuck on each paragraph trying to understand what Kant really meant. this lesson is great and it actually makes Kant legible.
Would you have any recommendation for secular philosophers who studied metaethics?
Same now
Thanks for uploading this. Enjoyed the lecture and subject matter.
a good lecture. but unless I've misunderstood, Kant says that moral principles can only be produced a priori, because no single instance of an event is enough to make a solid conclusion as to the underlying principle governing that instance, which seems true enough, but is it not also true that while moral principles may be produced a priori they can only be confirmed a posteriori?
Kant would seem to say no, since as long as an act is carried out in order to fulfil one's duty in accordance with the categorical imperative, said act is moral. however that seems to expose an obvious weakness of the theory, which makes the theory rigid and brittle, the most obvious example that demonstrates this is as follows:
if lying is wrong, there is a categorical imperative to avoid lying, regardless of the consequences. even if the person you are lying to is a nazi officer who is inquiring as to the whereabouts of some jewish refugees who are hiding in your basement. in such a situation the actor would be obligated to tell the truth.
this might be an over-simplification and/or a straw-man argument but this is the first objection that came to mind after listening to you speak.
a potential solution would be to combine the deontological ethics outlined here by Kant with a form of utilitarian ethics, such that there is a categorical imperative that compels one to act in a way that produces more good than harm, when one is reasonably able to do so.
@lyrical Npoetic And that Nazi is demanding information that is not rightfully his to possess.
7:10min But does the analogy with gravitation work even though in the critique for pure reason he is reacting to Hume, and in the practical reason he still seems to be answering Hume on being unable to derive an "ought" from an "is" as well as "reason being a slave of the passions" hence the need to distance oneself from the limits of identifying in excess with pathological objects.
Thanks very much professor!!
This was such a fantastic lecture. Thank you so much for sharing!!!
Thank you. This was so helpful.
Discussing Kant is a tough job. I know that because I taught his philosophy as a foundation of literary theory.
Excellent lecture
What he is saying is that in order to abolish lying forever on this earth, we all must lie all the time so that no one will believe anyone any more and then lying will no longer work and then lying will be a thing of the past.
good lecture :) thanks for uploading! this video helped me out with my class, I appreciate it!
17:05min It is when sense-date does not bring with it a set of categories. It will not speak human: hence scientific theories. That is the meaning of a-priori. It does not mean that Kant does not believe there is no empirical world. He just points to the limit of the amount of information derived from sense-data.
Thank you, it is a bit of a dense work (for being so tiny)... this really helps.
Thank you! clear and helpful
A Really good lecture!
This is a good lecture. I’m pretty sure my eardrums were just blown out when you said “must” at 8:42 though.
We cannot know a priori that other agents exist. So how can the a priori categorical imperative be about what others do, or how to treat others?
Thank you for the video. It is greatly helpful to me :)). But do you mind clarifying some doubts for me? I feel there is some sort of inconsistency from 32' to 34'. In Kant's view, what determines the nature (whether good or bad) of an action, is solely based on the intention, or the will, regardless of the outcomes/consequences. But why would Kant wholeheartedly agree with the statement "The end does not justify the means"? To me, the two do not seem to be talking about the same thing. And I feel the example of ending world hunger by stealing contradicting to Kant's view, because in that case, my intention would be to end world hunger (which is a good will), then if I take Kant's view, I should be doing a good thing, even if I do it by stealing from Bill Gates. Please help me with this confusion. Thank you so much!!
Yes, thats correct, please go ahead and steal from Bill G to fix the world's hunger problem. Lol I am sure Kant would approve of it and judge would rule according to your 'good intentions and not by the law. You could probably keep some small portion for yourself too, its only fair you get some reward for your good deed. Lol Good luck :)
Your intent to steal from Bill Gates involves bad will, and since it won't really end world hunger.....
And yet in critique of pure reason he said that pure rational metaphysics was impossible! Does not compute!
00:05 09:52 14:56 23:47 29:25 33:56 55:02
Is it only me or did I just listen to an ethics lecture by 90s Michael Douglas.
I don't see how someone could ever conceptualize any idea of 'something' without reference to sensory data. Every thought you have comes about with a visual, auditory, sensory memory of some sort. Everything is in reference to something, yin and yang. Kant was on a fools errand.
Thank you so much
To say that the good will is good, isn't that begging the question fallacy? 😊
Solid content, but if one is not interested in this subject s/he could easily fall asleep. After 5 minutes of listening to this presentation, it could easily become background noise as one daydreams of being somewhere else.
If one is not interested in this subject one should not be watching this video.
that's because you're not interested, but I didn't feel bored for one second of the lecture.
Put on 1.5x if you gone thru this stuff a few times, otherwise its soooo slow
dull