0:15 now we
0:18 turn to the hardest philosopher we're
0:21 going to read in this
0:25 course today we turn to Emanuel Kant who
0:27 offers a different
0:30 account of why we have a categorical
0:34 duty to respect the Dignity of persons
0:37 and not to use people as means
0:43 merely even for good
0:45 ends K excelled at the University of
0:48 kingburg at the age of
0:52 16 at the age of 31 he got his first
0:56 job as an unsalaried lecturer paid on
0:58 commission based on the number of
1:01 students who showed up at his lectures
1:03 this is a sensible system that Harvard
1:15 consider luckily for Kant he was a
1:18 popular lecturer and also an industrious
1:21 one and so he eak out a meager living it
1:24 wasn't until he was 57 that he published
1:27 his first major
1:30 work but it was worth the wait the book
1:32 was the critique of pure reason perhaps
1:35 the most important work in all of modern
1:38 philosophy and a few years later Kant
1:40 wrote the groundwork for the metaphysics
1:44 of morals which we read in this
1:47 course I want to acknowledge even before
1:50 we start that Kant is a difficult
1:52 thinker but it's important to try to
1:56 figure out what he's
1:59 saying because what what this book is about
2:06 is well it's about what the Supreme
2:09 principle of morality is number one and it's
2:10 it's
2:13 also it gives us an account one of the
2:15 most powerful accounts we have of what
2:20 Freedom really is so let me start
2:24 today K rejects
2:26 utilitarianism he thinks
2:28 thinks that
2:30 that
2:33 the individual
2:36 person all human
2:39 beings have a certain
2:46 respect the reason the individual is
2:48 sacred or the bearer of Rights according to
2:49 to
2:52 Kant doesn't stem from the idea that we own
2:57 ourselves but instead from the
3:06 beings we're all rational beings which simply
3:07 simply
3:11 means that we are beings who are capable of
3:15 reason we are
3:19 also autonomous
3:21 beings which is to say that we are
3:26 beings capable of acting and choosing
3:31 freely now this capacity for reason and
3:34 freedom isn't the only capacity we
3:37 have we also have the capacity for pain
3:41 and pleasure for suffering and
3:44 satisfaction Kant
3:49 admits the utilitarians were half
3:51 right of
3:54 course we seek to avoid
3:58 pain and we like
4:01 pleasure K does doesn't deny
4:03 this what he does
4:08 deny is bentham's claim that pain and
4:11 pleasure are our Sovereign Masters he
4:16 wrong Kant
4:20 thinks that it's our rational capacity
4:22 that makes us distinctive that makes us
4:25 special that sets us apart from and
4:28 above mere animal existence
4:30 existence
4:33 it makes us something more than just
4:36 physical creatures with appetites
4:38 appetites
4:41 now we often
4:43 think of
4:46 Freedom as simply consisting in doing
4:48 what we
4:52 want or in the absence of obstacles to
4:54 getting what we want that's one way of
4:56 thinking about
5:00 freedom but this isn't Kat's idea of
5:03 Freedom Kant has a more stringent
5:06 demanding notion of what it means to be
5:08 free and though it's stringent and
5:11 demanding if you think it through it's
5:17 persuasive Kant reasons as
5:21 follows when we like animals seek after
5:23 pleasure or the satisfaction of our
5:27 desires or the avoidance of pain when we
5:33 freely why
5:36 not we're really
5:38 acting as the
5:40 slaves of those
5:43 appetites and
5:46 impulses I didn't choose this particular
5:49 hunger or that particular appetite and
5:53 so when I act to satisfy
5:57 it I'm just acting according to Natural
6:01 necessity and for Kant freedom is the
6:08 necessity there was an advertising
6:12 slogan for the soft drink Sprite a few years
6:14 years
6:24 thirst there there's a count an Insight
6:27 buried in that Sprite advertising
6:30 slogan that in a way is K point when you
6:33 go for sprite or
6:37 Pepsi you're really you might think that
6:39 you're choosing freely Sprite versus
6:42 Pepsi but you're actually
6:45 obeying something a thirst or maybe a
6:48 desire manufactured or massaged by
6:50 advertising you're obeying a
6:54 prompting that you yourself haven't
7:00 created and here it's
7:01 it's
7:05 worth noticing kant's specially
7:10 demanding idea of freedom what way of
7:13 acting how can my will be determined if
7:16 not by the promptings of nature or my
7:19 Hunger or my appetite or my
7:23 desires K answer to act
7:26 freely is to act
7:29 autonomously and to act autonomously is
7:31 to act according to a law that I give
7:33 myself not
7:36 according to the physical laws of nature
7:39 or to the laws of cause and
7:43 effect which include my desire to eat or
7:45 to drink or to choose
7:47 choose
7:51 this food in a restaurant over that now
7:54 what is the opposite what is the
8:00 autonomy
8:02 for Kant he invents a
8:08 special term to describe the opposite of autonomy
8:09 autonomy
8:12 heteronomy is the opposite of
8:16 autonomy when I act
8:18 heteronomously I'm
8:20 acting according to an
8:23 inclination or a desire that I haven't
8:25 chosen for
8:28 myself so Freedom as
8:32 autonomy is the specially
8:41 on now why is
8:43 autonomy the opposite of acting
8:44 heteronomously or according to the
8:46 dictates of
8:50 nature Khan's point is that nature is
8:51 governed by
9:00 example suppose you drop a billiard
9:04 ball it falls to the
9:06 ground we wouldn't say the billiard ball
9:08 is acting
9:11 freely why not it's acting according to
9:14 the law of nature according to the laws
9:17 of cause and effect the law of
9:21 gravity and just as he has an unusually
9:23 demanding and stringent conception of
9:26 freedom freedom as
9:31 autonomy he also has a a demanding
9:36 conception of morality to act freely is
9:40 not to choose the best means to a given
9:43 end it's to choose the end itself for
9:46 its own
9:49 sake and that's
9:53 something that human beings can do and
9:55 that billiard balls
9:59 can't in so far as we act on in
10:02 inclination or pursue pleasure we act as
10:06 means to the realization of ends given outside
10:07 outside
10:11 us we are instruments rather than
10:14 authors of the purposes we pursue
10:16 pursue
10:19 that's the heteronomous determination of the
10:20 the
10:23 will the other hand in so far as we act
10:25 autonomously according to a law we give
10:28 ourselves we do something for its own
10:32 sake as an end in itself when we act
10:34 autonomously we cease to be instruments
10:38 to purposes given outside us we
10:45 ourselves as ends in
10:48 ourselves this capacity to act
10:52 freely Kant tells us is what gives human
10:55 life its special dignity respecting
10:59 human dignity means regarding persons
11:04 not just as means but also as ends in
11:06 themselves and this is why it's wrong to
11:10 use people for the sake of other
11:13 people's well-being or
11:16 happiness this is the real reason comp
11:20 says that utilitarianism goes
11:22 wrong this is the reason it's important
11:25 to respect the Dignity of persons and to
11:27 uphold their rights
11:29 rights
11:32 so even if there are cases remember John
11:34 Stewart Mill said well in the long run
11:36 if we uphold Justice and respect the
11:37 Dignity of
11:40 persons we will maximize human
11:43 happiness what would kant's answer be to
11:47 that what would his answer be even if
11:49 that were true even if the calculus
11:51 worked out that
11:54 way even if you shouldn't throw the
11:56 Christians to the Lions because in the
11:58 long run fear will spread the overall
12:01 utility will decline the utilitarian
12:03 would be upholding Justice and rights
12:07 and respect for persons for the wrong
12:12 reason for a purely contingent reason
12:15 for an instrumental reason it would
12:18 still be using people even where the
12:20 calculus works out for the best in the
12:23 long run it would still be using people as
12:30 means rather than respecting them as
12:32 ends in
12:35 themselves so that's kind's idea of
12:36 freedom as
12:39 autonomy and you can begin to see how
12:43 it's connected to his idea of
12:46 morality but we still have to answer one
12:49 more question what gives an act its
12:53 moral worth in the first place if it
12:54 can't be
12:57 directed at utility or satisfying wants
13:00 and desires what gives an action its moral
13:02 moral
13:05 worth this leads us from kant's
13:07 demanding idea of freedom to his
13:10 demanding idea of
13:13 morality what does Kant
13:18 say what makes an action morally
13:21 worthy consists not in the consequences
13:24 or in the results that flow from it what
13:27 makes an action morally worthy has to
13:30 do with the
13:34 motive with the quality of the will with the
13:36 the
13:38 intention for which the ACT is
13:43 done what matters is the motive and the
13:47 motive must be of a certain
13:50 kind so the moral worth of an action
13:52 depends on the motive for which it's
13:57 done and the important thing is that the
13:59 person do the right thing thing for the right
14:01 right
14:04 reason a good will isn't good because of
14:06 what it effects or accomplishes cont
14:09 rights it's good in
14:12 itself even if by its utmost effort The
14:15 Good Will accomplishes nothing it would
14:18 still shine like a jewel for its own
14:20 sake as something which has its full
14:24 value in itself and so for any action to
14:26 be morally
14:29 good it's not enough that it should
14:33 conform to the moral law it must also be
14:36 done for the sake of the moral
14:40 law the idea is that the motive
14:43 confers the moral worth on an
14:46 action and the only kind of motive that
14:50 can confir moral worth on an action is
14:52 the motive of
14:55 Duty well what's the opposite of doing
14:57 something out of a sense of Duty because
14:59 it's right
15:02 well for Kant the opposite would be all
15:05 of those motives having to do with our
15:09 inclinations and inclinations refer to
15:11 all of our desires all of our
15:14 contingently given wants preferences
15:16 impulses and the
15:19 like only actions done for the sake of
15:23 the moral law for the sake of Duty only
15:26 these actions have moral worth now I
15:28 want to see what you think about this
15:31 idea but first let's consider a few
15:35 examples Kant begins with an example of a
15:36 a
15:39 shopkeeper he wants to bring out the
15:43 intuition and make plausible the idea
15:44 that what confers moral worth on an
15:47 action is that it be done because it's
15:50 right he says suppose there's a
15:53 shopkeeper and an inexperience customer
15:56 comes in the shopkeeper knows that he
15:58 could give the customer the wrong change
16:01 could Short change the customer and get
16:03 away with it that at least that customer wouldn't
16:10 know but the shopkeeper nonetheless says
16:12 well if I short change this customer
16:16 word may get out my reputation would be
16:18 damaged and I would lose
16:22 business so I won't Short change this
16:24 customer the
16:26 shopkeeper does nothing wrong he gives
16:29 the correct change but does his action
16:34 have moral worth Kant says no it doesn't
16:36 have moral worth because the shopkeeper
16:38 only did the right thing for the wrong
16:44 self-interest that's a pretty straightforward
16:52 case then he takes another case the case of
16:54 of
16:56 suicide he says we have a duty to preserve
16:57 preserve ourselves
17:02 now for most
17:05 people who love
17:08 life we have multiple reasons for not
17:16 lives so the only way we can really tell
17:18 the only way we can isolate the operative
17:19 operative
17:22 motive for someone who doesn't take his
17:25 or her life is to think to imagine
17:27 someone who's miserable
17:39 despite having an absolutely miserable life
17:41 life
17:43 nonetheless recognizes the duty to preserve
17:45 preserve
17:46 oneself and
17:55 suicide that's the force of the example
17:57 is to bring
18:00 out the motive that matters and the
18:02 motive that matters for Morality is
18:05 doing the right thing for the sake of
18:09 Duty let me just give you a couple of other
18:10 other
18:12 examples the Better Business Bureau
18:15 what's their their slogan the slogan of
18:17 the Better Business Bureau honesty is
18:19 the best
18:22 policy it's also the most profitable
18:24 this is the Better Business bureau's
18:27 full page ad in the New York Times
18:30 Times
18:33 honesty is as important as any other
18:35 asset because a business that deals in
18:38 truth openness and fair value cannot
18:43 help but do well come join us and profit
18:47 from it what would Kant say about the
18:50 moral worth of the honest dealings of
18:53 members of the Better Business Bureau
18:56 what would he say that here's a perfect
18:59 example that if this is the the
19:02 reason that these companies deal
19:04 honestly with their
19:07 customers their action lacks moral worth
19:09 this is K's
19:11 point or a couple of years ago at the
19:13 University of Maryland there was a
19:14 problem with
19:17 cheating and so they
19:20 initiated an honor
19:22 System and they created a program with
19:25 local Merchants that if you signed the
19:28 honor pledge a pledge not to cheat you
19:31 would get discounts of 10 to 25% at local
19:36 shops well what would you think of someone
19:38 someone
19:42 motivated to uphold an honor code with
19:47 the hope of discounts it's the same as K
19:50 shopkeeper the point is what matters is
19:52 the quality of the will the character of the
19:53 the
19:56 motive and the relevant motive to
20:00 morality can only be the motive of Duty
20:07 inclination and when I act out of
20:11 Duty when I resist as my motive for
20:13 acting inclinations or
20:16 self-interest even sympathy and
20:21 altruism only then am I acting
20:24 freely only then am I acting
20:27 autonomously only then is my will not determined
20:28 determined or
20:30 or
20:34 governed by external considerations
20:36 that's the link between K idea of
20:38 freedom and of morality now I want to
20:41 pause here to see if all of this is
20:44 clear or if you have some
20:47 questions or puzzles they can be
20:48 questions of
20:52 clarification or they can be challenges
20:55 if you want to challenge this idea that
20:57 only the motive of Duty confers moral
21:02 worth on the action what do you think
21:05 yes yeah I actually have uh two
21:06 questions of
21:09 clarification um the the first is there
21:11 seems to be an aspect of this that makes
21:14 it sort of uh self-defeating and that
21:17 once you're conscious of um what
21:19 morality is you can sort of alter your
21:22 motive to achieve that end of of
21:24 morality and second give me give me an
21:27 example of what you have in mind uh the
21:30 shopkeeper example if he decides that he
21:33 wants to give the person the money um to
21:35 do the right thing and he and he decides
21:38 that's his motive to do so um because he
21:39 wants to be moral then isn't that sort
21:43 of defeating trying to um isn't that
21:44 sort of defeating the purity of his
21:47 action if if if morality is determined
21:49 by his motive his motive is his motive
21:50 is then to act morally so you're
21:53 imagining a case not of the purely
21:55 selfish calculating
21:58 shopkeeper but of one who says well he
22:02 may consider short changing the customer
22:05 but then he says not well my reputation
22:08 might suffer if word gets out but
22:11 instead he says actually I would like to
22:13 be the kind of honest
22:16 person who gives the right change to
22:18 customers simply because it's the right
22:21 thing to do or simply because I want to
22:24 be moral because I want to be moral I
22:26 want to be a good person and so I'm
22:28 going to conform all of my actions to
22:39 requires it's a subtle point it's a good
22:43 question Kant does acknowledge you're
22:46 pressing Kant on an important Point here
22:52 some
22:56 incentive to obey the moral law it can't
22:59 be a self-interested incentive
23:02 that would defeat it by
23:05 definition so he speaks of a different
23:08 kind of incentive from an inclination he
23:11 speaks of reverence for the moral law so
23:14 if that shopkeeper
23:16 says I want to
23:20 develop a reverence for the moral
23:22 law and so I'm going to at and so I'm
23:24 going to do the right
23:28 thing then I think he's there he's there
23:30 as far as kant's
23:34 concerned because he's formed his motive
23:39 his will is conforming to the moral law
23:43 once he sees the importance of it so it
23:46 would count it would count all right and
23:49 then secondly very quickly um what stops
23:51 morality from becoming completely
23:53 objective in this point what stops
23:55 morality from becoming sub completely
23:58 subjective yeah like how can if there's
24:01 if morality is if morality is completely
24:03 determined by your morals then how can
24:05 you apply this or how can it be enfor
24:06 that's also a great question what's your
24:11 name my name is amadi amadi yeah all
24:16 right if acting morally means acting
24:20 according to a moral law out of
24:24 Duty and if it's also to act freely in
24:26 the sense of
24:29 autonomously it must mean that I'm
24:31 acting according to a law that I give
24:33 myself that's what it means to act
24:37 autonomously amadi is right about
24:40 that but that does raise a really interesting
24:41 interesting
24:44 question if acting autonomously means
24:47 acting according to a law I give myself
24:50 that's how I escape the chain of cause
24:53 and effect in the laws of
24:56 nature what's to
24:59 guarantee that the law I give
25:02 myself when I'm acting out of Duty is the
25:04 the
25:08 same as the law that Amar is giving
25:10 himself and that each of you
25:16 gives
25:19 yourselves well here's the question how
25:22 many moral laws from cons point of view
25:24 are there in this
25:27 room are there a thousand or is there one
25:29 one
25:32 he thinks there's one which in a way
25:33 does go back to this question all right
25:42 us so what guarantees it sounds like it
25:44 to act autonomously is to act according
25:46 to one's conscience according to a law
25:47 one gives
25:50 oneself but what guarantees that we if
25:52 we all exercise our reason we will come
25:55 up with one and the same moral law
25:56 that's what aaditi wants to know
25:59 know
26:05 answer the reason that leads
26:09 us to the law we give ourselves as
26:19 reason it's a kind of practical reason
26:25 beings it's
26:31 the reason we need to respect the
26:33 Dignity of persons is that we're all
26:35 rational beings we all have the capacity
26:38 for reason and it's the exercise of that
26:42 capacity for reason which exists
26:44 undifferentiated in all of
26:47 us that makes us worthy of dignity all of
26:48 of
27:00 reason unqualified by particular
27:02 autobiographies and life circumstances
27:04 it's the same Universal capacity for
27:07 reason that delivers the moral law it
27:09 turns out that to act
27:11 autonomously is to act according to a
27:15 law we give ourselves exercising our
27:19 reason but it's the reason we share with
27:22 everyone as rational beings not the
27:24 particular reasons we have given our
27:26 upbringings our particular values our
27:29 particular interest
27:34 it's pure practical reason in K's terms
27:35 which legislates a
27:39 priori regardless of any particular
27:41 contingent or empirical
27:44 ends well what moral law would that kind
27:52 deliver what is its
27:55 content to answer that question you have
27:58 to read the groundwork and we continue
