Kantian Ethics

In this video, we dive into the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant, an 18th-century German philosopher known for his formulation of deontological ethics. Unlike teleological ethical theories that focus on the ends or goals of our actions, Kant’s deontology centres on duty as the fundamental moral concept.

Kant argues that to act morally, we must act for the sake of duty, regardless of personal desires or feelings. This emphasis on duty is grounded in reason, making moral requirements universal and objective for all rational agents. We explore the concept of acting from a good will, which Kant sees as the only intrinsically good thing, giving our actions moral worth.

Moral duties, according to Kant, take the form of categorical imperatives, which are unconditional demands. They contrast with hypothetical imperatives, which are conditional demands based on personal desires. The Categorical Imperative is the supreme principle of morality and can be expressed in different ways.

We introduce two key formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The Law of Nature Formula acts as a test to determine if a maxim can be universalized without contradiction. We explain contradictions in conception and contradictions in the will through examples like false-promising and helping those in need. The second formulation, the Formula of the End in Itself, emphasises treating humanity as an end in itself rather than as a mere means to an end.

Perfect for University Courses & A-Level Philosophy & Ethics OCR & AQA or equivalent.

Join us as we break down these complex ideas and prepare to explore more of Kant’s ethical theory in our next videos.

🔍 Key Points Covered:
- The difference between deontological and teleological ethics
- The role of duty in Kant’s moral philosophy
- The significance of acting from a good will
- Understanding categorical vs. hypothetical imperatives
- Introduction to the Law of Nature Formula and the Formula of the End in Itself

📖 Chapters:
00:00 Deontology vs Teleology
00:24 Duty
00:40 Good Will
01:36 Hypothetical vs Categorical Imperatives
02:26 The Categorical Imperative: The Supreme Principle of Morality
02:40 Formula of the Universal Law of Nature
03:45 Contradiction in Conception
04:48 Contradiction in the Will
05:32 Formula of the End in Itself (also called Formula of Humanity)
06:40 Watch My Other Videos for More :)

🔔 Subscribe for more insights into ethical theories and philosophy!
👍 Like this video if you found it helpful!
🗨️ Comment your thoughts or questions below!

📺 Watch Next:

#Philosophy #Ethics #Kant #Deontology #CategoricalImperative

[LucasSobarzoValderrama]

I like to review these topics from time to time. You were really clear, i liked the video!

[christianfandomgeek]

Good video I'm using some of your examples in a Star Wars episode of my podcast about Baylan Skoll from the Ahsoka show

[willieluncheonette]

" I am reminded of a great German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. He is a specimen of those people who are absolutely in the mind. He lived according to mind so totally that people used to set their watches, whenever they saw Immanuel Kant going to the university. Never — it may rain, it may rain fire, it may rain cats and dogs, it may be utterly cold, snow falling … Whatever the situation, Kant will reach the university at exactly the same time all the year round, even on holidays. Such a fixed, almost mechanical … He would go on holiday at exactly the same time, remain in the university library, which was specially kept open for him, because otherwise what would he do there the whole day? And he was a very prominent, well-known philosopher, and he would leave the university at exactly the same time every day.

One day it happened … It had rained and there was too much mud on the way — one of his shoes got stuck in the mud. He did not stop to take the shoe out because that would make him reach the university a few seconds later, and that was impossible. He left the shoe there. He just arrived with one shoe. The students could not believe it. Somebody asked, “What happened to the other shoe?”

He said, “It got stuck in the mud, so I left it there, knowing perfectly well nobody is going to steal one shoe. When I return in the evening, then I will pick it up. But I could not have been late.”

A woman proposed to him: “I want to be married to you” — a beautiful young woman. Perhaps no woman has ever received such an answer, before or after Immanuel Kant. Either you say, “Yes, ” or you say, “No. Excuse me.” Immanuel Kant said, “I will have to do a great deal of research.”

The woman asked, “About what?”

He said, “I will have to look in all the marriage manuals, all the books concerning marriage, and find out all the pros and cons — whether to marry or not to marry.”

The woman could not imagine that this kind of answer had ever been given to any woman before. Even no is acceptable, even yes, although you are getting into a misery, but it is acceptable. But this kind of indifferent attitude towards the woman — he did not say a single sweet word to her. He did not say anything about her beauty, his whole concern was his mind. He had to convince his mind whether or not marriage is logically the right thing.

It took him three years. It was really a long search. Day and night he was working on it, and he had found three hundred reasons against marriage and three hundred reasons for marriage. So the problem even after three years was the same.

One friend suggested out of compassion, “You wasted three years on this stupid research. In three years you would have experienced all these six hundred, without any research. You should have just said yes to that woman. There was no need to do so much hard work. Three years would have given you all the pros and cons — existentially, experientially.”

But Kant said, “I am in a fix. Both are equal, parallel, balanced. There is no way to choose.”

The friend suggested, “Of the pros you have forgotten one thing: that whenever there is a chance, it is better to say yes and go through the experience. That is one thing more in favor of the pros. The cons cannot give you any experience, and only experience has any validity.”

He understood, it was intellectually right. He immediately went to the woman’s house, knocked on her door. Her old father opened the door and said, “Young man, you are too late. You took too long in your research. My girl is married and has two children.” That was the last thing that was ever heard about his marriage. From then on no woman ever asked him, and he was not the kind of man to ask anybody. He remained unmarried."

[slgnssp]

the thing I get confused about this is always how much nuance should apply.

Like, say I want to cut in line to spend less time in line. If everyone did that no one would spend less time in line, so a contradiction in the will I guess.

But say I'm kinda late and under this circumstance I decide to cut in. If everyone decides to cut in when they're late, since not everyone is late, everyone who is late would actually save time. So is that okay in this case?

It seems to me that if we allow no nuance the whole idea is simply impossible to reasonably apply in most non-trivial scenarios, but if you allow enough nuance then in the limit your maxim even when universalized would actually only apply to the specific situation and reduce to "would I like to do this now?".

So, like, it feels like the whole exercise can only be reasonably well defined in light of some criteria to decide how the maxim is cut off to begin with, which kinda seems to defeat the idea of this as some ultimate test, as it relies on some other sort of test essentially, to actually be applied.

Anyway, I guess I've never really seem this be applied to anything more than toy problems or with a heavy grain of vagueness - like in "refusing people who need help *when we could easily help them*", that "easily" is doing a whole lot of work.

That being said, nice video - it helped me put this nagging feeling into words, so thanks for that : )