Immanuel Kant argues that morality is grounded in reason and autonomy, not consequences or inclinations. True freedom lies in acting according to self-imposed rational laws (duty), which is the source of human dignity and the basis for moral worth.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
now we
turn to the hardest philosopher we're
going to read in this
course today we turn to Emanuel Kant who
offers a different
account of why we have a categorical
duty to respect the Dignity of persons
and not to use people as means
merely even for good
ends K excelled at the University of
kingburg at the age of
16 at the age of 31 he got his first
job as an unsalaried lecturer paid on
commission based on the number of
students who showed up at his lectures
this is a sensible system that Harvard
consider luckily for Kant he was a
popular lecturer and also an industrious
one and so he eak out a meager living it
wasn't until he was 57 that he published
his first major
work but it was worth the wait the book
was the critique of pure reason perhaps
the most important work in all of modern
philosophy and a few years later Kant
wrote the groundwork for the metaphysics
of morals which we read in this
course I want to acknowledge even before
we start that Kant is a difficult
thinker but it's important to try to
figure out what he's
saying because what what this book is about
is well it's about what the Supreme
principle of morality is number one and it's
it's
also it gives us an account one of the
most powerful accounts we have of what
Freedom really is so let me start
today K rejects
utilitarianism he thinks
thinks that
that
the individual
person all human
beings have a certain
respect the reason the individual is
sacred or the bearer of Rights according to
to
Kant doesn't stem from the idea that we own
ourselves but instead from the
beings we're all rational beings which simply
simply
means that we are beings who are capable of
reason we are
also autonomous
beings which is to say that we are
beings capable of acting and choosing
freely now this capacity for reason and
freedom isn't the only capacity we
have we also have the capacity for pain
and pleasure for suffering and
satisfaction Kant
admits the utilitarians were half
right of
course we seek to avoid
pain and we like
pleasure K does doesn't deny
this what he does
deny is bentham's claim that pain and
pleasure are our Sovereign Masters he
wrong Kant
thinks that it's our rational capacity
that makes us distinctive that makes us
special that sets us apart from and
above mere animal existence
existence
it makes us something more than just
physical creatures with appetites
appetites
now we often
think of
Freedom as simply consisting in doing
what we
want or in the absence of obstacles to
getting what we want that's one way of
thinking about
freedom but this isn't Kat's idea of
Freedom Kant has a more stringent
demanding notion of what it means to be
free and though it's stringent and
demanding if you think it through it's
persuasive Kant reasons as
follows when we like animals seek after
pleasure or the satisfaction of our
desires or the avoidance of pain when we
freely why
not we're really
acting as the
slaves of those
appetites and
impulses I didn't choose this particular
hunger or that particular appetite and
so when I act to satisfy
it I'm just acting according to Natural
necessity and for Kant freedom is the
necessity there was an advertising
slogan for the soft drink Sprite a few years
years
thirst there there's a count an Insight
buried in that Sprite advertising
slogan that in a way is K point when you
go for sprite or
Pepsi you're really you might think that
you're choosing freely Sprite versus
Pepsi but you're actually
obeying something a thirst or maybe a
desire manufactured or massaged by
advertising you're obeying a
prompting that you yourself haven't
created and here it's
it's
worth noticing kant's specially
demanding idea of freedom what way of
acting how can my will be determined if
not by the promptings of nature or my
Hunger or my appetite or my
desires K answer to act
freely is to act
autonomously and to act autonomously is
to act according to a law that I give
myself not
according to the physical laws of nature
or to the laws of cause and
effect which include my desire to eat or
to drink or to choose
choose
this food in a restaurant over that now
what is the opposite what is the
autonomy
for Kant he invents a
special term to describe the opposite of autonomy
autonomy
heteronomy is the opposite of
autonomy when I act
heteronomously I'm
acting according to an
inclination or a desire that I haven't
chosen for
myself so Freedom as
autonomy is the specially
on now why is
autonomy the opposite of acting
heteronomously or according to the
dictates of
nature Khan's point is that nature is
governed by
example suppose you drop a billiard
ball it falls to the
ground we wouldn't say the billiard ball
is acting
freely why not it's acting according to
the law of nature according to the laws
of cause and effect the law of
gravity and just as he has an unusually
demanding and stringent conception of
freedom freedom as
autonomy he also has a a demanding
conception of morality to act freely is
not to choose the best means to a given
end it's to choose the end itself for
its own
sake and that's
something that human beings can do and
that billiard balls
can't in so far as we act on in
inclination or pursue pleasure we act as
means to the realization of ends given outside
outside
us we are instruments rather than
authors of the purposes we pursue
pursue
that's the heteronomous determination of the
the
will the other hand in so far as we act
autonomously according to a law we give
ourselves we do something for its own
sake as an end in itself when we act
autonomously we cease to be instruments
to purposes given outside us we
ourselves as ends in
ourselves this capacity to act
freely Kant tells us is what gives human
life its special dignity respecting
human dignity means regarding persons
not just as means but also as ends in
themselves and this is why it's wrong to
use people for the sake of other
people's well-being or
happiness this is the real reason comp
says that utilitarianism goes
wrong this is the reason it's important
to respect the Dignity of persons and to
uphold their rights
rights
so even if there are cases remember John
Stewart Mill said well in the long run
if we uphold Justice and respect the
Dignity of
persons we will maximize human
happiness what would kant's answer be to
that what would his answer be even if
that were true even if the calculus
worked out that
way even if you shouldn't throw the
Christians to the Lions because in the
long run fear will spread the overall
utility will decline the utilitarian
would be upholding Justice and rights
and respect for persons for the wrong
reason for a purely contingent reason
for an instrumental reason it would
still be using people even where the
calculus works out for the best in the
long run it would still be using people as
means rather than respecting them as
ends in
themselves so that's kind's idea of
freedom as
autonomy and you can begin to see how
it's connected to his idea of
morality but we still have to answer one
more question what gives an act its
moral worth in the first place if it
can't be
directed at utility or satisfying wants
and desires what gives an action its moral
moral
worth this leads us from kant's
demanding idea of freedom to his
demanding idea of
morality what does Kant
say what makes an action morally
worthy consists not in the consequences
or in the results that flow from it what
makes an action morally worthy has to
do with the
motive with the quality of the will with the
the
intention for which the ACT is
done what matters is the motive and the
motive must be of a certain
kind so the moral worth of an action
depends on the motive for which it's
done and the important thing is that the
person do the right thing thing for the right
right
reason a good will isn't good because of
what it effects or accomplishes cont
rights it's good in
itself even if by its utmost effort The
Good Will accomplishes nothing it would
still shine like a jewel for its own
sake as something which has its full
value in itself and so for any action to
be morally
good it's not enough that it should
conform to the moral law it must also be
done for the sake of the moral
law the idea is that the motive
confers the moral worth on an
action and the only kind of motive that
can confir moral worth on an action is
the motive of
Duty well what's the opposite of doing
something out of a sense of Duty because
it's right
well for Kant the opposite would be all
of those motives having to do with our
inclinations and inclinations refer to
all of our desires all of our
contingently given wants preferences
impulses and the
like only actions done for the sake of
the moral law for the sake of Duty only
these actions have moral worth now I
want to see what you think about this
idea but first let's consider a few
examples Kant begins with an example of a
a
shopkeeper he wants to bring out the
intuition and make plausible the idea
that what confers moral worth on an
action is that it be done because it's
right he says suppose there's a
shopkeeper and an inexperience customer
comes in the shopkeeper knows that he
could give the customer the wrong change
could Short change the customer and get
away with it that at least that customer wouldn't
know but the shopkeeper nonetheless says
well if I short change this customer
word may get out my reputation would be
damaged and I would lose
business so I won't Short change this
customer the
shopkeeper does nothing wrong he gives
the correct change but does his action
have moral worth Kant says no it doesn't
have moral worth because the shopkeeper
only did the right thing for the wrong
self-interest that's a pretty straightforward
case then he takes another case the case of
of
suicide he says we have a duty to preserve
preserve ourselves
now for most
people who love
life we have multiple reasons for not
lives so the only way we can really tell
the only way we can isolate the operative
operative
motive for someone who doesn't take his
or her life is to think to imagine
someone who's miserable
despite having an absolutely miserable life
life
nonetheless recognizes the duty to preserve
preserve
oneself and
suicide that's the force of the example
is to bring
out the motive that matters and the
motive that matters for Morality is
doing the right thing for the sake of
Duty let me just give you a couple of other
other
examples the Better Business Bureau
what's their their slogan the slogan of
the Better Business Bureau honesty is
the best
policy it's also the most profitable
this is the Better Business bureau's
full page ad in the New York Times
Times
honesty is as important as any other
asset because a business that deals in
truth openness and fair value cannot
help but do well come join us and profit
from it what would Kant say about the
moral worth of the honest dealings of
members of the Better Business Bureau
what would he say that here's a perfect
example that if this is the the
reason that these companies deal
honestly with their
customers their action lacks moral worth
this is K's
point or a couple of years ago at the
University of Maryland there was a
problem with
cheating and so they
initiated an honor
System and they created a program with
local Merchants that if you signed the
honor pledge a pledge not to cheat you
would get discounts of 10 to 25% at local
shops well what would you think of someone
someone
motivated to uphold an honor code with
the hope of discounts it's the same as K
shopkeeper the point is what matters is
the quality of the will the character of the
the
motive and the relevant motive to
morality can only be the motive of Duty
inclination and when I act out of
Duty when I resist as my motive for
acting inclinations or
self-interest even sympathy and
altruism only then am I acting
freely only then am I acting
autonomously only then is my will not determined
determined or
or
governed by external considerations
that's the link between K idea of
freedom and of morality now I want to
pause here to see if all of this is
clear or if you have some
questions or puzzles they can be
questions of
clarification or they can be challenges
if you want to challenge this idea that
only the motive of Duty confers moral
worth on the action what do you think
yes yeah I actually have uh two
questions of
clarification um the the first is there
seems to be an aspect of this that makes
it sort of uh self-defeating and that
once you're conscious of um what
morality is you can sort of alter your
motive to achieve that end of of
morality and second give me give me an
example of what you have in mind uh the
shopkeeper example if he decides that he
wants to give the person the money um to
do the right thing and he and he decides
that's his motive to do so um because he
wants to be moral then isn't that sort
of defeating trying to um isn't that
sort of defeating the purity of his
action if if if morality is determined
by his motive his motive is his motive
is then to act morally so you're
imagining a case not of the purely
selfish calculating
shopkeeper but of one who says well he
may consider short changing the customer
but then he says not well my reputation
might suffer if word gets out but
instead he says actually I would like to
be the kind of honest
person who gives the right change to
customers simply because it's the right
thing to do or simply because I want to
be moral because I want to be moral I
want to be a good person and so I'm
going to conform all of my actions to
requires it's a subtle point it's a good
question Kant does acknowledge you're
pressing Kant on an important Point here
some
incentive to obey the moral law it can't
be a self-interested incentive
that would defeat it by
definition so he speaks of a different
kind of incentive from an inclination he
speaks of reverence for the moral law so
if that shopkeeper
says I want to
develop a reverence for the moral
law and so I'm going to at and so I'm
going to do the right
thing then I think he's there he's there
as far as kant's
concerned because he's formed his motive
his will is conforming to the moral law
once he sees the importance of it so it
would count it would count all right and
then secondly very quickly um what stops
morality from becoming completely
objective in this point what stops
morality from becoming sub completely
subjective yeah like how can if there's
if morality is if morality is completely
determined by your morals then how can
you apply this or how can it be enfor
that's also a great question what's your
name my name is amadi amadi yeah all
right if acting morally means acting
according to a moral law out of
Duty and if it's also to act freely in
the sense of
autonomously it must mean that I'm
acting according to a law that I give
myself that's what it means to act
autonomously amadi is right about
that but that does raise a really interesting
interesting
question if acting autonomously means
acting according to a law I give myself
that's how I escape the chain of cause
and effect in the laws of
nature what's to
guarantee that the law I give
myself when I'm acting out of Duty is the
the
same as the law that Amar is giving
himself and that each of you
gives
yourselves well here's the question how
many moral laws from cons point of view
are there in this
room are there a thousand or is there one
one
he thinks there's one which in a way
does go back to this question all right
us so what guarantees it sounds like it
to act autonomously is to act according
to one's conscience according to a law
one gives
oneself but what guarantees that we if
we all exercise our reason we will come
up with one and the same moral law
that's what aaditi wants to know
know
answer the reason that leads
us to the law we give ourselves as
reason it's a kind of practical reason
beings it's
the reason we need to respect the
Dignity of persons is that we're all
rational beings we all have the capacity
for reason and it's the exercise of that
capacity for reason which exists
undifferentiated in all of
us that makes us worthy of dignity all of
of
reason unqualified by particular
autobiographies and life circumstances
it's the same Universal capacity for
reason that delivers the moral law it
turns out that to act
autonomously is to act according to a
law we give ourselves exercising our
reason but it's the reason we share with
everyone as rational beings not the
particular reasons we have given our
upbringings our particular values our
particular interest
it's pure practical reason in K's terms
which legislates a
priori regardless of any particular
contingent or empirical
ends well what moral law would that kind
deliver what is its
content to answer that question you have
to read the groundwork and we continue
Click on any text or timestamp to jump to that moment in the video
Share:
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
One-Click Copy125+ LanguagesSearch ContentJump to Timestamps
Paste YouTube URL
Enter any YouTube video link to get the full transcript
Transcript Extraction Form
Most transcripts ready in under 5 seconds
Get Our Chrome Extension
Get transcripts instantly without leaving YouTube. Install our Chrome extension for one-click access to any video's transcript directly on the watch page.
