Kant's Categorical Imperative | Highlights Ep.46

In this Highlight from Hillsdale College’s FREE online course, “Introduction to Western Philosophy,” Dr. Nathan Schlueter explains the categorical imperative--Immanuel Kant's famous teaching on morality. Click this link to enroll in this FREE online course today and learn more about the ideas and philosophers who have shaped the West.

Hillsdale College is an independent institution of higher learning founded in 1844 by men and women “grateful to God for the inestimable blessings” resulting from civil and religious liberty and “believing that the diffusion of learning is essential to the perpetuity of these blessings.” It pursues the stated object of the founders: “to furnish all persons who wish, irrespective of nation, color, or sex, a literary, scientific, [and] theological education” outstanding among American colleges “and to combine with this such moral and social instruction as will best develop the minds and improve the hearts of its pupils.” As a nonsectarian Christian institution, Hillsdale College maintains “by precept and example” the immemorial teachings and practices of the Christian faith.

The College also considers itself a trustee of our Western philosophical and theological inheritance tracing to Athens and Jerusalem, a heritage finding its clearest expression in the American experiment of self-government under law.

By training the young in the liberal arts, Hillsdale College prepares students to become leaders worthy of that legacy. By encouraging the scholarship of its faculty, it contributes to the preservation of that legacy for future generations. By publicly defending that legacy, it enlists the aid of other friends of free civilization and thus secures the conditions of its own survival and independence.

[craigsteinkamp]

The density of Kant’s work required me to read it at least two to three times to really parse out everything. I really enjoyed this short of Kant and his imperative.

[wisenber]

When asked if one were hiding any one, merely say "I Kant answer that."

[jonathanbolding]

I came across the Moral Imperative several months ago. Quite illuminating and required me to examine my internal self.-

[pamelaferreira]

If one doesn’t do the Moral Action, the the person will suffer guilt . To suppress the guilt the person will drink, do drugs or become more evil just to cover the guilt. Failing to do a moral act will eventually destroy the one who fails to be moral.

[jackiegrawe_art]

Thank you for articulating this point so well. It was a tough one. This is no excuses, radical honesty. I’d like to learn more about this Kant guy.

[YouTubeHandlesAreMoronic]

[raises hand] Lowly public school graduate here, but in regards to 1:58, if it is a Moral action worthy of esteem to sacrifice one's life to save another, how is it NOT a moral action to sacrifice one's personal devotion to a moral code to save someone by lying to the Nazi's?

[genclikonboard]

If Kant thinks that making false promises in case of need is wrong because in such circumstances no one will trust each other and the society will collapse, he would be a consequentialist. The real reason is that if I universalize making false promises, the concepts of promise and trust will be meaningless, which indicates a contradiction. What makes something a "promise" is the reliance on keeping it. If it is not kept, universally, the concept itself will be in contradiction with its actuality, which is unacceptable for Kant. Don't confuse it with the consequences likely to happen.

[DavidUrbinaFitness]

In short you need to practice "right action" and sovereignty within, and come to the realization that you are a autonomous being 💡

[syourke]

Kant never even defines what morality is. He starts out he telling us that “there is nothing that is absolutely good except a good will”. But he never tells us he means by “good will”.

[tonyfoglio]

I highly recommend taking the online course from Hillsdale, "Introduction to Western Philosophy."

[monicagarciarojas-ev]

Very interesting… a while ago, long before seeing this, I was reflecting on what we are and how we think; “man lives as he thinks.” Early this morning I saw a man walking barefoot on the grass, a beautiful act of freedom, spontaneity, integration of his nature, with nature, creation. Morality implies integration, truth from the inside out. Reality is a utopia in generalities because it is different for each individual according to how he thinks and everything leads him to become convinced, even if conviction is not involved. So, morality speaks when the heart hurts, in an incorrect response or reaction, the soul warns, it lets us know if we are acting well or badly. If it hurts we are good and there is an inclination towards honesty, if it does not hurt and we are indifferent, then there is no morality. Everything depends on what is possessed, to the extent that you have you give, and you cannot give what you do not have, that is why morality is the surname of the soul. 🕊️☑️🙏🏻

[maryj]

Kant couldn't see the simplicity of what was under his nose.

[Raymond.Butler]

I am a veteran and you missed the entire point of your example. If those people are found, of course they are lost so they deserve no further consideration as far as this example. If they get caught, YOU are going to suffer terribly. And morality does have its masters. Just as duty, morality can not live in a vacuum. Morality is a duty you owe yourself, in your actions and treatment of others.

[ystoiek]

The problem with this assumption - Kant didn't take it back far enough, he had to go back to when there was a lot of grunting and pointing going on because good morals are instilled from the day you're born by the ones that care for you, and if those morals are vague the individual is more likely to waiver¿`_

[jpkubalak]

I may be missing something, but this sounds like an attempt to define morality completely devoid of its religious component. We don't just self govern. For example, "Thou shall not kill" has never been a thing throughout history prior to religion. I know this is just highlights on a lecture, but am I missing the point?

[markwrede]

Kant's reciprocity is unfulfilled by the mutual extortion Smith identified as the action of capital in economy.

[donaldclifford]

Kant seems like a German variation of Can't.

[lucasblanc]

In the real world our ability to process morality is not the same, it's tied directly to mental habits, will power and our awareness of the situation. We rarely have such clear-cut propositions like that. That's not quite being at the edge-of-chaos, it just tends towards order by the need of simplification to create the theory.

But I get it, we have to at least define the boundaries of the problem to see the gradient of possibilities from one point to the other.

And then depending on the situation, depending on the point of view of each individual, we will plot areas within that space of how those actions were perceived by each individual.

I mean, you might as well at this point throw in other value systems and we have a multi-dimentional space.

For the indoctrinated nazi that was an immoral action to lie about the jews, since it goes against their value system.

But let me save ourselves here: Some moral systems are much more wholesome/solid than others, some systems have more consistency, less gaps and execeptions and overall lead to more positive outcomes to EVERYONE including the individual.

Of course at some places of that space there will be situations where someone saving themselves and 10 not surviving might be seen as positive or negative.

In some situations, you can't make everyone happy, and you pick the least bad of many options.

[blisstickmystic]

We are playing with broken shards already

[grantbartley]

Kant's ethical analysis is clearly wrong, by reductio. The fundamental ethical principle, I think, should be 'the lesser of two evils', or on some occasions, 'the greater of two goods'.