Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Andy
I love these videos, but this one has a significant error in it. Kant doesn't thing that universalizing a maxim like stealing means everyone should ALWAYS steal. If you think about it, if that were the case, then giving would be equally wrong because you'd be continuously giving the banana and no-one would ever get to eat it.
What he really thought was that in universalizing the maxim, you are saying that everyone is ALLOWED to steal, if in the same circumstances. This is obviously wrong because allowing stealing would undermine the principle of property. Since when you steal, you are saying 'this is now mine', you are relying on the principle of property while at the same time undermining it, which is illogical. Also, you wouldn't rationally want to live in a world in which everyone was allowed to steal, so if you choose to steal then you are acting illogically in the sense that you are making one rule for yourself and a different one for everyone else. This is illogical because you are equal to others.
Years of teaching this stuff at A Level; )
reply
I love these videos, but this one has a significant error in it. Kant doesn't thing that universalizing a maxim like stealing means everyone should ALWAYS steal. If you think about it, if that were the case, then giving would be equally wrong because you'd be continuously giving the banana and no-one would ever get to eat it.
What he really thought was that in universalizing the maxim, you are saying that everyone is ALLOWED to steal, if in the same circumstances. This is obviously wrong because allowing stealing would undermine the principle of property. Since when you steal, you are saying 'this is now mine', you are relying on the principle of property while at the same time undermining it, which is illogical. Also, you wouldn't rationally want to live in a world in which everyone was allowed to steal, so if you choose to steal then you are acting illogically in the sense that you are making one rule for yourself and a different one for everyone else. This is illogical because you are equal to others.
Years of teaching this stuff at A Level; )
reply
Quentin
This is lovely, but wrong. This video gives a consequentialist argument for why Kant thinks the woman shouldn't like to the aspiring murderer! That is utterly contrary to how Kant views morality! According to Kant, you should not lie because were you to universalize lying, you would undermine the notion of truth and trustworthiness. Likewise were you to universalize breaking promises you would make promises meaningless and people -would laugh at utterances of this kind as empty shams. - This is very disappointing as videos like this are a valuable tool. The video on Aristotle's virtue ethics is also not quite right. Aristotle does not advocate finding the -middle point- between a virtue and a vice, but advocates finding the proper balancing point that may not be the middle point at all. The golden -mean- is a metaphor, not an actual geometry problem. Such interpretation leads to the fallacious thinking that the best position is the central compromise position, sometimes called the golden mean fallacy, which is not what Aristotle was up to.
reply
This is lovely, but wrong. This video gives a consequentialist argument for why Kant thinks the woman shouldn't like to the aspiring murderer! That is utterly contrary to how Kant views morality! According to Kant, you should not lie because were you to universalize lying, you would undermine the notion of truth and trustworthiness. Likewise were you to universalize breaking promises you would make promises meaningless and people -would laugh at utterances of this kind as empty shams. - This is very disappointing as videos like this are a valuable tool. The video on Aristotle's virtue ethics is also not quite right. Aristotle does not advocate finding the -middle point- between a virtue and a vice, but advocates finding the proper balancing point that may not be the middle point at all. The golden -mean- is a metaphor, not an actual geometry problem. Such interpretation leads to the fallacious thinking that the best position is the central compromise position, sometimes called the golden mean fallacy, which is not what Aristotle was up to.
reply
Oppothumbs
Kant's categorical imperative if really fallacious at times. If you lie for a good reason - to save someone's life - that is GREAT. Poor Tony just had bad luck but the woman is not responsible for his death. You can't look at outcomes to judge all moral behavior. Intention is important. I think Kant-s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
reply
Kant's categorical imperative if really fallacious at times. If you lie for a good reason - to save someone's life - that is GREAT. Poor Tony just had bad luck but the woman is not responsible for his death. You can't look at outcomes to judge all moral behavior. Intention is important. I think Kant-s main mistake lies in the way he thinks about the relation between his theoretical and his practical philosophy. He thinks he can salvage the notion of freedom indispensable to his moral philosophy only by reintroducing as objects of faith the metaphysical truths he had denied as objects of knowledge. I think this is a confusing and unnecessary move, which sends him straight back into the pre-critical, metaphysical age he had wanted to break away from.
reply
Gurpreet
Hi, absolutely loved the video and all of your content to be honest.
Yet, I couldn't help but notice that this videos starts off with saying that there will be 4 formulations of categorical imperatives discussed but there were only two. I'm very interested in the subject and I would appreciate it if you could please let me know what the other two formulations of categorical imperatives are.
Thank You.
reply
Hi, absolutely loved the video and all of your content to be honest.
Yet, I couldn't help but notice that this videos starts off with saying that there will be 4 formulations of categorical imperatives discussed but there were only two. I'm very interested in the subject and I would appreciate it if you could please let me know what the other two formulations of categorical imperatives are.
Thank You.
reply
Victor
Letting a friend to be killed plays a part in assisting the murderer to kill the friend, therefore breaks the moral law too. Moral law should be defined by intention, not action. Otherwise, an executioner carrying out capital punishments would be a murderer. Love should be the ultimate measure of morality.
reply
Letting a friend to be killed plays a part in assisting the murderer to kill the friend, therefore breaks the moral law too. Moral law should be defined by intention, not action. Otherwise, an executioner carrying out capital punishments would be a murderer. Love should be the ultimate measure of morality.
reply
K4R3N
Using others as a means.
My God I've worked for some terrible bosses that really need to watch this video.
There's so much -usage- in offices and businesses, could help to inject some humanity into the workplace and I don't mean just an email on your birthday.
reply
Using others as a means.
My God I've worked for some terrible bosses that really need to watch this video.
There's so much -usage- in offices and businesses, could help to inject some humanity into the workplace and I don't mean just an email on your birthday.
reply
Hong
What if Elvira made a promise to protect Tony's life. According to Kant, wouldn't Elvira have a moral duty to uphold that promise and protect Tony even at the expense of lying to the killer?
reply
What if Elvira made a promise to protect Tony's life. According to Kant, wouldn't Elvira have a moral duty to uphold that promise and protect Tony even at the expense of lying to the killer?
reply
Kushagra
how does Kant differ between Values and Integrity? This is a question i have recieved in an assignment but cant seem to find an answer for it. Please someone help me out haha
reply
how does Kant differ between Values and Integrity? This is a question i have recieved in an assignment but cant seem to find an answer for it. Please someone help me out haha
reply
Ercan
well kant himself sees god as a categorical imperative derived from our pure reason his famous -criticism of pure reason- in order to disprove David Hume's -is-ought problem-.
reply
well kant himself sees god as a categorical imperative derived from our pure reason his famous -criticism of pure reason- in order to disprove David Hume's -is-ought problem-.
reply
pad92011
Very interesting. But why concentrate on Kant's ideas of morality instead of his ideas on substance and metaphysics which have a greater impact on current philosophy.
reply
Very interesting. But why concentrate on Kant's ideas of morality instead of his ideas on substance and metaphysics which have a greater impact on current philosophy.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
