Full transcript
0:00is the phrase it's a thought that counts
0:02in fact
0:03true hi dr lee here with another video
0:06on ethics and philosophy and this time
0:08we'll be taking a look at kant and
0:09deontology
0:11so most human actions have an intent
0:14or purpose when i help an old lady
0:16across the street there might be
0:18many reasons for why i might do this the
0:21action of helping an old lady across the
0:23street looks the same
0:24but the reason or the intent or the
0:26purpose
0:28might be very different and of course
0:30there are some
0:31actions like a reflex or a reaction that
0:35doesn't have the same quote-unquote
0:36intended purpose that we're talking
0:37about here
0:38but for the most part most actions have
0:41an intent
0:42and this intent is what kant calls
0:45a maxim the maxim is the intent or
0:49purpose
0:50that that precedes the action
0:53and in kantian ethics or in deontology
0:56we look at the
0:57maxim to know uh what drives immoral
1:00action and what essentially what
1:01determines
1:02whether the action is morally good or
1:05morally bad
1:06so why did i help the old lady across
1:08the street
1:09was it because of a out of
1:13a desire for keeping her safe or
1:16was it merely to look good in front of
1:18my friends the
1:19action is the same but according to kant
1:23only one of them is a morally good
1:26action and the other one
1:27is a morally bad action so if the
1:31maxim is morally good then the action
1:34is morally good if the maxim is morally
1:36bad then the
1:37action is morally bad so
1:40what happens when i have good intentions
1:44but a bad result i want to be a good
1:47friend
1:48so i throw a surprise birthday party for
1:51my friend plans are set things are going
1:54well
1:55the moment of surprise is upon us and my
1:58friend walks in
1:59and everyone yells surprise my friend is
2:02shocked
2:03and has a heart attack obviously that is
2:06a bad
2:07result but that's but does that change
2:10whether the action of throwing a
2:13surprise
2:14surprise birthday party uh to be morally
2:16good or
2:17morally bad for kant he would say no
2:21while the result is bad that does not
2:24change
2:24the uh whether the action was morally
2:28good or morally bad
2:29because the intent is what determines
2:32whether an action is morally good or
2:33morally bad regardless of the result yes
2:36the result was terrible
2:37but that doesn't change the morality of
2:40the
2:41action the intent was good so the
2:44action is more good even if there's a
2:47bad result so
2:50what determines whether a intent or a
2:54maxim is morally good or morally
2:57bad and here this is where kant
2:59introduces
3:00introduces what he calls a categorical
3:03imperative and he does this
3:04with three formulations the first
3:07formulation
3:08goes like this act only in a way
3:11in which that maxim you would desire at
3:14the same time
3:15to become universal law
3:18so think about your maxim think about
3:21your reasons for why you're going to do
3:23this
3:24if you can't desire that this maxim
3:28would become universal for everyone and
3:30all times then that means
3:33you shouldn't be doing it essentially
3:35this formulation of the categorical
3:37imperative
3:37is saying that you don't get to
3:39prioritize yourself
3:41you don't get to say to others this
3:43maxim is off limits for you
3:45but i will go ahead and do it the
3:48second formulation kant says
3:52to treat others as enzymes and cells
3:55and never as mere means so we use people
3:59all the time we need people to do things
4:02for
4:02us when i take my kids down to
4:04mcdonald's to get salsa
4:05i use the cashier for
4:08my my ends of getting some some dessert
4:13so we're down to mcdonald's i order my
4:16soft serve for myself and for my
4:18my kids and of course the softer machine
4:22is broken
4:22well how do i treat this person
4:26does it change for kant he says no
4:29i treat the person as ends them
4:31themselves as a
4:33fellow human being their worth is
4:36is within themselves as an ends because
4:39they are a fellow human being their
4:41worth is not contingent
4:43upon whether they could get me what i
4:46want
4:46so even though the soft-serve machine is
4:49broken
4:50even though my kids are not throwing a
4:52fit even though nobody's getting ice
4:54cream today
4:55that does not change how i treat this
4:58person because
5:00again their worth and how i treat them
5:03is is in themselves and not
5:06merely what they can get me the third
5:09category comparative contest to act to
5:12your maxims
5:13so that you could become a legislator of
5:16universal law
5:17so imagine someone following you for
5:2024 hours and while they're following you
5:23they're recording your every moment
5:26and while creepy and invasive that may
5:27be think about
5:29your actions and your maxims for that
5:32day
5:32would you do something that you probably
5:35don't usually do but will do now
5:38are you doing are you not going to do
5:41something
5:41that you would usually do but you are
5:44doing it now
5:44because of you know that extra scrutiny
5:47what kant is trying to get at
5:48is that if you could live a way in which
5:52you don't care that someone's watching
5:55your
5:55your maxims um and and whatnot
5:59essentially well one your life would be
6:00drastically different
6:02but two you also then living in a way in
6:05which your
6:05your maxims be can become a legislator
6:08for universal law
6:10it would be a radically different life
6:13when you think rationally and ethically
6:16about our maxims we are living according
6:19to what kant
6:20calls the good will so
6:23what's the ultimate good in life as a
6:25chicagoan
6:26the answer is i'll say a chicago style
6:28hotdog right
6:30while i'm eating this hot dog it's the
6:31best while someone hands me a second and
6:34a third one it's still the best
6:35but come fourth or fifth you know i've
6:38hit my limit
6:39and that same hot dog is no longer good
6:43essentially the goodness of this chicago
6:45style hot dog
6:47needs qualifications it's only good
6:51when i'm hungry it's only good when
6:54it's a real chicago style hot dog it's
6:57only good
6:58when it doesn't have ketchup whatever
7:01the idea is that if something is good
7:05when it has qualifications or if
7:08something is good
7:09only when certain qualifications are met
7:12is it in fact
7:13truly all that good for kant
7:16there's only one thing that's good
7:18without
7:19qualification there's only one thing
7:21that's good all the time
7:23and that one thing kant calls the good
7:27will the goodwill is your ability
7:30to know your moral duty and live
7:33accordingly
7:35out that moral duty in life being a
7:38moral person
7:39and living an ethical life is always
7:42good
7:42and is good in it of itself without
7:46any qualifications right there are no
7:49qualifications needed
7:50for a morally uh lived out life to be
7:54good
7:55and to be and to remain good
7:58and this brings us to our last point
8:01of moral worth
8:05anyone with kids will tell you that you
8:06have to teach them to say
8:08thank you right it doesn't come natural
8:10you have to compel them
8:12to do it you have to teach them to do it
8:14so when my child says
8:15thank you that action has
8:18no moral worth it is merely repeating
8:22what i
8:22told them to do even years later when
8:25they've grown up
8:26and they say thank you if it is merely
8:30out of habit or merely because of a
8:32custom
8:33that saying of thank you too has no
8:36moral worth only when somebody learns
8:40the concepts of gratitude and
8:42appreciation
8:44and saying thank you out of the good
8:46will does that action
8:48carry moral worth so
8:51i know we covered a lot but i hope this
8:54helps you understand
8:55content deontology let me know
8:58in the comments below and come back for
9:00future videos