This content explores Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, focusing on his quest to identify the supreme principle of morality. It explains Kant's framework through three key dualisms: duty versus inclination, autonomy versus heteronomy, and categorical versus hypothetical imperatives, ultimately leading to the formulation of the Categorical Imperative.
Mind Map
Click to expand
Click to explore the full interactive mind map • Zoom, pan, and navigate
remember it this is the week by the end
of which all of you will basically get
can't figure out what he's up to
you're laughing no it will happen Kant's
groundwork is about two big questions
first what is the supreme principle of
two big questions now one way of making
your way through this dense
philosophical book is to bear in mind a
set of opposition's or contrasts or dualisms
dualisms
that are related today I'd like to talk
about them today we're going to answer
the question what according to Kant is
the supreme principle of morality and in
answering that question in working our
way up to con censor to that question it
will help to bear in mind three
contrasts or dualisms that Kant sets out
the first you remember had to do with
the motive according to which we act and
according to Kant only one kind of
motive is consistent with morality the
motive of Duty doing the right thing for
what other kind of motives are there
can't sums them up in the category of
inclination every time the motive for
what we do is to satisfy a desire or a
preference that we may have to pursue
some interest we're acting out of
inclination now let me pause to see if
in thinking about the question of the
motive of Duty the good will see if any
of you has a question about that much of
Kant's claim or is everybody happy with
this distinction what do you think go ahead
ahead
when you make that distinction between
duty and inclination is there ever any
moral action ever I mean you could
always kind of probably find some
selfish selfish motive can't you may be
very often people do have
self-interested motives when they act
Khan wouldn't dispute that but what Kant
is saying is that insofar as we act
morally that is insofar as our actions
have moral worth
what confers moral worth is precisely
our capacity to rise above self-interest
and prudence and inclination and to act
out of duty some years ago I read about
a spelling bee and there was a young man
who was declared the winner of the
spelling bee a kid named Andrew 13 years
old the winning word the word that he
was able to spell was echolalia does
anyone know what echolalia is what it's
it means the tendency to repeat as an
echo to repeat what you've heard anyhow
he's he misspelled it actually but the
judges misheard him they thought he had
spelled it correctly and awarded him the
championship of the National Spelling
Bee and he went to the judges afterward
and said actually I misspelled it I
don't deserve the prize and he was
regarded as a moral hero and he was
written up in the New York Times miss
and but when he was interviewed
afterwards listen to this when he was
interviewed afterwards he said quote the
judges said I had a lot of integrity but
then he added the part of his motive was
alright what would can't say go ahead I
guess it would depend on whether or not
that was a marginal reason or the
predominant reason in whether or not and
why he decided to confess that he didn't
actually spell the word correctly good
and what's your name Vasco that's very
interesting is there anyone else who has
a view about this does this show that
Kant's principle is too stringent too
demanding what we can't say about this
yes I think that Khan actually says that
it is the pure motivation that comes out
of duty which gives the action moral
growth so it's like for example in this
case he might have more than one motive
you might have the motive of not feeling
like a slime and he might have the
motive of doing the right thing for in
and of itself out of duty and so wow
that's more than one motivation going on
there does not mean that the action is
devoid of moral worth just because he
has one other motive so because the
motive which involves Duty is what gives
it no moral growth good and what's your
name Judith well Judith I think that
your account actually is true to count
it's fine to have sentiments and
feelings that support doing the right thing
thing
provided they don't provide the reason
for acting so I think Judith actually
has mounted a pretty good defense of
Kant on this question of the motive of
duty thank you now let's go back to the
three contrasts it's clear at least what
Kant means when he says
that for an action to have moral worth
it must be done for the sake of duty not
out of inclination but as we began to
see last time there's a connection
between Kant's stringent notion of
morality and his specially demanding
understanding of freedom and that leads
us to the second contrast the link
between morality and freedom
the second contrast describes two
different ways that my will can be
determined autonomously and
heteronomously and according to Kant I
am only free when my will is determined
autonomously which means what according
to a law that I give myself we must be
capable if we're capable of freedom as
autonomy we must be capable of acting
according not to a law that's given or
imposed on us but according to a law we
give ourselves but where could such a
law come from a law that we give
ourselves reason if reason determines my
will then the will becomes the power to
choose independent of the dictates of
nature or inclination or circumstance so
connected with Kant's demanding notions
of morality and freedom is a specially
demanding notion of reasoning well how
can reason determine the will there are
two ways and this leads to the third
contrast Kant says there are two
different commands of reason and a
command of reason Kant calls an
imperative an imperative is simply an
art one kind of imperative perhaps the
most familiar kind is a hypothetical imperative
hypothetical imperatives use
instrumental reason if you want X then
do why it's means-ends reasoning if you
want a good business reputation then
don't shortchange her customers word
make it out that's a hypothetical
imperative if the action would be good
solely as a means to something else Kant
writes the imperative is hypothetical if
the action is represented as good in
itself and therefore as necessary for a
will which of itself accords with reason
then the imperative is categorical
that's the difference between a
categorical imperative and a
hypothetical one a categorical
imperative commands categorically which
just means without reference to or
dependence on any further purpose and so
you see the connection among these three
parallel contrasts to be free in the
sense of autonomous requires that I act
not out of a hypothetical imperative but
out of a categorical imperative and so
you see by these three contrast Kant
reasons his way brings us up to his
derivation of the categorical imperative
well this leaves us one big question
what is the categorical imperative what
is the supreme principle of morality
what is it command of us can't gives
three versions three formulations of the
categorical imperative I want to mention
two and then see what you think of them
the first
version the first formula he calls the
formula of the universal law Act only on
that Maxim whereby you can at the same
time will that it should become a
universal law and by maksim what is
can't mean he means a rule that explains
the reason for what you're doing a
principle for example promise keeping
suppose I need money I need a hundred
dollars desperately and I know I can't
pay it back anytime soon I come to you
and make you a promise of false promise
when I know I can't keep please give me
a hundred dollars today
lend me the money I will repay you next
week is that consistent with the
categorical imperative that false
promise Khan says no in the test the way
we can determine that the false promise
is at odds with the categorical
imperative is try to universalize it
universalize the maxim upon which you're
about to act if everybody made false
promises when they needed money then
nobody would believe those promises
there would be no such thing as a
promise and so there would be a
contradiction the maxim universalized
would undermine itself that's the test
that's how we can know that the false
promise is wrong well what about the
formula of the universal law you find it
persuasive what do you think
go ahead I have a question about the
difference between categorical ISM and a
hypothesis that if you're going to match
between categorical and hypothetical ya
imperatives right if you're going to act
with a categorical imperative so that
the maxim doesn't undermined itself it
sounds like I am going to do X because I
want Y I am going to not lie in dire
need because I want the world to
function in such a way that promises are
kept I don't want to liquidate the
practice of promises right it sounds
like justifying a means by an ends it
seems like an instance of
consequentialist reasoning you're saying
and what's your name
Tim Tim well Tim John Stuart Mill agreed
with you he made this he made this
criticism of Kant
he said if I universalize the maxim and
find that the whole practice of promise
keeping would be destroyed if
universalized I must be appealing
somehow to consequences if that's the
reason not to tell a false promise
so John Stuart Mill agreed with that
criticism against can't but John Stuart
you're in good company though you're in
good company Tim Conte has often read as
Tim just read him as appealing to
consequences the world would be worse
off if everybody lied because then no
one could rely on anybody else's word
therefore you shouldn't lie that's not
what cond is saying exactly although
it's easy to interpret him as saying
that I think what he's saying is that
this is the test this is the test of
whether the maxim corresponds with the
categorical imperative it isn't exactly
the reason it's not the reason the
reason you should universalize to test
your maxim is to see whether you are
privileged Nguni dan desires over
everybody else's it's a way of pointing
to this feature this demand of the
categorical imperative that the reasons
for your action shouldn't depend for
their justification on your interests
your needs your special circumstances
being more important than somebody
else's that I think is the moral
intuition lying behind the
universalization test so let me spell
out the second Kant's second version of
the categorical imperative
perhaps in a way that's more intuitively
accessible than the formula of universal
law it's the formula of humanity as an end
end
konna introduces the second version of
the categorical imperative but the
following line of argument we can't base
the categorical imperative on any
particular interest purposes or ends
because then it would be only relative
to the person
ends they were but suppose there was
something whose existence has in itself
an absolute value and end in itself
then in it and in it alone would there
be the ground of a possible categorical
imperative well what is there that we
can think of as having its end in itself
Const answer is this I say that man and
in general every rational being exists
as an end in himself not merely as a
means for arbitrary use by this or that
will and here Kant distinguishes between
persons on the one hand and things on
the other rational beings are persons
they don't just have a relative value
for us but if anything has they have an
absolute value an intrinsic value that
is rational beings have dignity they're
worthy of reverence and respect this
line of reasoning leads Kant to the
second formulation of the categorical
imperative which is this act in such a
way that you always treat humanity
whether in your own person or in the
person of any other never simply as a
means but always at the same time as an
end so that's the formula of humanity as
an end the idea that human beings as
rational beings are ends in themselves
not open to use merely as a means when I
make a false promise to you I'm using
you as a means to my ends to my desire
for the hundred dollars and so I'm
failing to respect you I'm failing to
respect your dignity
I'm manipulating you now consider the
murder and suicide are at odds with the
categorical imperative why if I murder
someone I'm taking their life for some
purpose either because I'm hired killer
or I'm in the throes of some great anger
or passion well I have some interest
some purpose that's particular for the
sake which I'm using them as a means
murder violates the categorical
imperative for Kant morally speaking
suicide is on a par with murder it's on
a par with murder because what we
violate when we take a life when we take
someone's life ours or somebody else's
we use that person we use a rational
being we use humanity as a means and so
we fail to respect humanity as an end
and that capacity for reason that
humanity the commands respect that is
the ground of dignity that humanity that
capacity for reason resides
undifferentiated in all of us and so I
violate that dignity in my own person if
I commit suicide and in murder if I take
somebody else's life from a moral point
of view they're the same and the reason
they're the same has to do with the
universal character and ground of the
moral law the reason that we have to
respect the dignity of other people has
not to do with anything in particular
about them and so respect contine
respectives unlike love in this
way it's unlike sympathy it's unlike
solidarity or fellow feeling or altruism
because love and those other particular
virtues or reasons for caring about
other people have to do with who they
are in particular but respect for can't
respect is respect for Humanity which is
universal for a rational capacity which
is universal and that's why violating it
in my own case is as objectionable as
violating it in the case of any other
questions or objections go ahead
I guess I'm somewhat worried about
Kant's statement that you cannot use a
person as a means because every person
is an end in and of themselves because
it seems that that every day in order to
get something accomplished for that day
I must use myself as a means to some end
and I must use the people around me as a
means to some end as well for instance
suppose that I want to do well in the
class and I have to write a paper I have
to use myself as a means to write the
paper suppose I want to buy something
food I must go to the store and use the
person working behind the counter as a
means for me to purchase my food right
that's true you do what's your name
Patrick Patrick you're not doing
anything wrong you're not violating the
categorical imperative when you use
other people as means that's not
objectionable provided when we deal with
other people for the sake of advancing
our projects and purposes and interests
which we all do provided we treat them
in a way that is consistent with respect
for their dignity and what it means to
respect them
are you persuaded do you think that Kant
has given a compelling account a
persuasive account of the supreme
principle of morality reread the
groundwork and will try to answer that
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.
