Kant’s Ethics: Homophobia, Child Killing--and Derek Chauvin

The first part is an intro to Kant’s ethics.
The second part of the video talks about Kant's homophobia, his defense of killing "illegitimate" children--and what it has to do with Derek Chauvin.

Kant's Philosophy | Why we Need a New Enlightenment:

Another video about Kant:
BAD Philosophy Videos! (Philosophy Tube on Kant's Philosophy):

0:00 Kant's Moral Philosophy
12:13 And: What's Wrong with It

Sources:
Immanuel Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals. (Mary Gregor tr.). Cambridge University Press: 2017.

On homosexuality: p. 68
On servants: p. 101
On death penalty: p. 116
On “illegitmate” children, p. 118

Friedrich Nietzsche, “Metaphysics of the Hangman”: Twilight of the Idols, “The Four Great Errors” (7).
----
Dr Hans-Georg Moeller is a professor in the Philosophy and Religious Studies Program at the University of Macau.

Thanks to Jim Lei Wanjun for selecting images for illustrations.

[lethal]

I love the disclaimer at the beginning. Always good to remember the reality about the platform we're using.

[jacob]

That warning at the beginning is fantastic. Really makes me stop and think whether I actually want to watch the video, or am just feeding an addiction. Thank you for being so responsible.

[spiritualanarchist]

Kant shows us how the most critical thinking people can be complete assholes.

[colonelweird]

I just googled "wokeism" to test whether I understood its meaning. Except for one article from India, all the top results were from right-wing American sources. They defined wokeism using phrases such as the following: "the new state religion, " "seeks to create a Marxist utopia, " "trying to destroy all of western civilization." The conservatives using this language did not seem to realize that they were contradicting themselves in their passion to condemn wokeism.

You use "wokeism" in a way that seems neutral, as if it objectively names a well-defined political ideology.

But I could not find any other person on the internet who uses the term this way.

It would be really helpful if you could explain what you mean by it, and why you're using such a loaded term in a philosophical discussion.

[afanasymarinov]

I'm seriously aiming to binge watch all of Professor Moeller's video essays. It's highly addictive Please upload more!
Bitte mehr davon!

[callumrhind]

With regards to a defence against homophobia, since the idea is mentioned, I would like to argue that one shouldn't say: "being gay isn't a choice, therefore I cannot be blamed or held accountable for my homosexual behaviour", alternatively one should argue that: "If it were a choice, and it isn't precisely clear whether it is or not, there would be nothing immoral about having made such a choice to enjoy romantic evenings with, or have sex with, or marry someone who is of the same sex, or who is transgender/doesn't fit inside the gender binary."

[xenoblad]

In defense of “zeal”, it’s very difficult to combat “zeal” without using your own “zeal”.
If a threat to you refuses to engage in honest dialogue, then you can only respond in some strong act of counter-conviction in your own defense. It’s not out of the ordinary for such displays of defensive conviction to come off as uncompromising and dogmatic.

[florentbourbeau]

I think that for you to affirm that Kant's view on these issues is influenced by his time, you would need to show that his opinion on these issues doesn't follow from his theory. Because simply appealing to our intuition on these issues, which for most of us would say that Kant is wrong, only means this : either Kant has found what is actually good and we need to overcome our intuitions, either our intuitions are for some reason correct and Kant didn't apply his theory correctly/made a false theory or maybe everybody's wrong. So it's a bit like you assumed our intuition was correct, but how can I know if my intuition on something is better than anyone else? Including dead people.

[rvnsglcr]

Absolutely fantastic content. I'm glad the algorithm made the mistake that it did.

[pygmalion]

0:06 oof that is the best disclaimer i have ever seen.

[sarahdynasty]

I like how you throw in the occasional smiles at every interesting turn of the subject, it really makes me think deeply about what you are saying.

[aboubacaramine]

I gotta disagree on the Derek Chauvin point. Yes wokeness is out of control but Derek Chauvin wasn't on trial for a bad tweet. He killed someone. How is he to be treated differently than any other murderer? Nobody called for the death penalty for him. People just demanded that he faced consequences for what he did. If anything this obsession of guilt you're talking about applies more to George Flyod who they tried to paint as a thug and deserving of what happened to him.

[bloodnchocolate]

Thank you for you clarity in both thoughts and words. A real pleasure to watch!

[TheHunterGracchus]

Kant couldn't accept the historicity of human existence, hence his angry tirade against Herder.

[golem]

didnt feel like half an hour at all, very interesting as usual

[SirThyrm]

9:55 is potentially problematic.
A hundred percent self-control is something that Kant has his own problems with and actually calls the Stoics out for. It is to demanding as we would say today. I do not know the citation of that passage on the fly, but if interest exists i can look it up.

Sorry, i know that this is a video with another focus and only ~30 minutes long. It is just something i wanted to point out.

[firerose]

Your lectures are fascinating. Thank you.

[kevinfischer]

Some minor feedback: could you use a more readable font for the warning? At lower playback quality, thin lines are erased, which works against the font you’ve used.

[zacheryhershberger]

As a leftist, I was eager to see Chauvin punished not because I cannot bear to see an individual escape deserved retribution, but because it reflects the only means whereby the system can reckon with itself. Chauvin was not an individual murderer poo poo bad man, he was an agent of the state who abused that agency.

[richardburt]

Fantastic episode. Thank you. Will you be discussing Lacan's essay "Kant with Sade?" Derrida has an interesting discussion of Kant's account of lying (and Arendt not discussing it in The Modern Lie). And Derrida takes up Kant's view of the death penalty in his death penalty seminars.