Kant's Moral Theory: Why the Categorical Imperative?

A straight-forward, unsensationalized discussion of Kant's Categorical Imperative, discussing his argument in detail.

[krish]

Thank you for posting this, it’s very interesting. I like his attempt at equality here, even if his theories have some pitfalls (but who doesn’t?).

[darkengine]

Excellent video! I find Kant's views from what I can understand so contrasting with my own views although I doubt we'd be in disagreement so often about what actions are morally right or wrong. I also admire his ability in creating a self-reinforcing moral framework based on an axiom (the axiom itself might be what I find most disagreeable). The greatest difficulty I have is perhaps in terms of persuasion. If I encounter someone who habitually mistreats others as solely a means, I don't find much persuasive power in simply telling him that he's failing in his moral duties. "So what?" is the response I anticipate in such contexts, especially if he's been lucky so far and his mistreatment of people is not catching up to him in a bad way.

So perhaps somewhat idealistically, I want to characterize an action as moral when it has the highest probability (not guarantee) of producing desirable long-term consequences. A person who treats others well optimizes their chances for themselves and their loved ones of living a prosperous life in harmony with others with more allies than enemies, while a person who mistreats others minimizes such chances and works towards creating far more enemies than allies.

Unfortunately -- and especially given our very short lifespans -- good people can get very unlucky and be punished for doing good, and bad people can get very lucky and be rewarded for doing bad without their bad actions catching up to them with negative repercussions. Yet the smart gambler as I see it errs on the side of good since it has the highest probability from the best I can tell of resulting in a prosperous life. So I find even that consequentialist type of argument somewhat lacking in persuasive power, but it's the most persuasive argument I can muster to steer people (including myself at times) towards a better path. I see promoting morality more as a matter of persuasion of the benefits of being moral than something so innate.

I want to find an argument that has a fighting chance to even work on sociopaths and psychopaths absent that innate ability to empathize with people (something I believe I have) to see the benefits to our self-interest of favoring moral actions. I'm still favoring reason as governing morality but in a way that wants to be able to persuade as many people as possible regardless of their innate qualities.

[solace]

is it fine if I start with critique of pure reason or should I read anything else before studying kant?

[mkx]

what scare me about kant is his simiarity with rousseau
they prefer "moral freedom" whereby freedom only exist where law begin
rousseau used this theory to justify his democratic theory where everyone must participate in politics and force to be free
i prefer classical liberal conception of "private freedom" whereby freedom only exist where law is silent
for hobbes and locke, private liberty is about immunity from service and participation which can allow sovereign individual to flourish

[skylerdjy]

i just came here to say that i can't believe you wasted the opportunity to say "You Kant be serious"

[stephannaro]

Since I am unwilling to make "Everyone should read Kant" a universal law, I guess that_I_ should not read Kant.

[vishnuburla]

a few things that might help. The will is practical reason. the will is deliberation that results in action and thats identical to practical reason. the good will is unconditionally good because it is not good in reference to its matter (the object or consequences outside the will) but to merely its form, its universality. so it is good "in" (logically dependent) itself because its goodness, its content, only refers to its form. A will, a thing of thought, can only do this (refer to itself) so nothing in the world, which is only sense data, can do this. also, lying or any action is right or wrong to do because of its maxim (the principle why which it guides or justifies that action) which contains the means and ends of concern. lying (the means) to the axe murder is "wrong" (irrational in practical reasoning) for the sake of saving your friends life (end) is that it violates what kant calls a "contradiction" is thought or conception. if the maxim was conceived as a universal law (a necessary rule), then it practically wouldn't "work" on principle. nobody would believe the lie (since everyone is operating on the idea that lying is legitimate) and so lying cannot be a moral law in any system of nature. this is a "practical" contradiction and not like a logical contradiction (a and not a) because the end (saving your friend) doesn't entail the means (lying). for kant, ends entail their means because its analytic (its contradictory to say the means - that implies the end - is not necessary, when the end is necessary. hope that helps.