The first video in Dr. Richard Brown's discussion of Kant's deontology. In this video we discuss Kant's argument that the only thing with intrinsic value is the Good Will
Within seconds I could immediately tell this video was going to be substantially better than other Kant videos on youtube, simply by the speaker's correct pronunciation of Kant. Well done sir.
That is a bloody brilliant lecture. BTW, in conformity with the lecture, may i ask that what is your motivation to upload this video? a) because you feel good when u help other people b) self-promotion c) moral duty. But whatever your intention is, this video is incredibly helpful. Do i sound consequentialist? Thank u very much indeed.
Second question, sometimes we may feel both. Namely we may help a beggar for both we feel that we are obliged to do it (moral duty) and at the same time we may get pleasure out of this help. So, in this case, would our action be half moral and half-nonmoral. Or where Kant would place this action in his ethics? Because the motivation is not purely based on moral duty nor pleasure.
So to sum this up... Kant thinks that there should be a universal moral law from which people's moral actions ought to derive from? If this is the case, I thoroughly disagree.
All Kant gave us was a test. The categorical imperative. This test is overcome by people already knowing what is morally relevant when excluding certain types of categorical imperatives. i.e. All people with green eyes can tell lies. Does anybody disagree with this test? why?
Kant is dead, he can not think. This is an interpretation of Kant's writings, albeit a very good and professional one. Adolf Eichmann, so wiki tells us, defended himself against the accusation of genocide (or something similar to that), claiming that, in doing his duty, he followed Kant's categorical imperative - Eichmann's interpretation.
THANK YOU MR ......i will ask you for more about philosophy of the 20th century,,,,maybe you will explain more about NIETZCHE MARX FREUD to the existentialists M.HEIDEGGER 'S BEING AND TIME then J P SARTRE'S BEING AND NOTHINGNESS,,,i will listen to you and if you want we discuss online ethics,religion,politics,culture,racial conflict,we can discuss too much philosophical topics,.......THANK YOU SIR AGAIN......I WILL KEEP THE LINK AND WAIT YOUR ANSWER.............
I think morality is a subject of sociocultural evolution. More importantly I think that when you try to define what is morally right or wrong, you should draw from the context and circumstances surrounding the deed(s). Example ----------- Murder is morally unacceptable, so is "murder is immoral" a *universal* moral *truth*? Let's say someone had shot and killed Adolf Hitler in order to thwart the Holocaust. I don't think I would class that act as immoral. At the same time, my stance on murder would not change much-in that I acknowledge that murder is generally a very immoral and evil act to commit. Is this a relative morality? Does it not trump a universal morality?
Wrong. Morality is derived from within. It's the only way to determine morality. You are the only judge of it. This is not about what is righteous. This is about morality. Each of us have a different interpretation of morality. Righteousness is above and beyond morality. Then there is self preservation. This becomes above all else the most important objective anyone can endeavor.
• Is righteousness not an extension of morality then? Righteousness being the integrity of one's actions (based on morals) and morality being the integrity of one's beliefs (prefiguring how righteous one can/will/may be)? • Does morality not change over time (with the zeitgeist)? Example: The vast majority of us in 2013 consider the notion of racism/homophobia/xenophobia to be abhorrant, yet one hundred years ago people espoused such prejudices, perhaps as a result of how we as humans are innately distrusting/wary of those who are different to the tribe. • It would then follow that if morality was derived entirely from within, then we would, in some ways, have quite a terrible set of beliefs. Our innate morality being one that cares only for reciprocality in righteous behaviour (the inborn behaviour favoured by natural selection). • Conclusion: Is morality not both innate *and* learnt?
+stephen k I love it when the philosophically ignorant and morally confused discuss deontological moral philosophy and use big twisty wordy words to contradict themselves in the same sentence, and otherwise say nothing important, except that anything you want to do is okay (moral) because morality is subjective. so cute... all while sporting a bernie avatar.
P1/ Ethics is true human nature being expressed, If a Human is good/ expressing his ethical nature: harmonyous an ballenced with respect for self and other aspects of life, trust and honer in truth of life then our actions will be good. where if a peson is in a state of dissharmoney/ not expressing ethics then their actions will display it an result in this unhapyness. Ethics is our internl source of right and wrong, our internal sence of whats harmonyous an A warning of wats not good for us.
P4/ A good person is defined as good because in the basis for his actions it can be seen his nature is true/good and becaue a mans good actions came from his good decisions then there for action comes from the person and the nature ofthese actions reflect the nature of the person choisng them. action is awalys Form the Person, wether it be concoius action or a life lived of routined action comein from tthe self with no concious exertion, comeing from the programed/tainted unconciousness within.
If morality and moral truths have any meaning whatsoever morality is then necessarily universal. If this was not the case then "murder is wrong" is nothing more than saying "I disagree with murder". You would be unable to judge any action as moral or immoral. Your denying the existence of moral truths. The problem with Kant is that universality is a sufficient case for a moral truth for him but just because is universality is necessary doesn't mean that it is sufficient for a moral truth.
Ethics is true human nature being expressed, If a Human is good/ expressing his ethical nature: harmonyous an ballenced with respect for self and other aspectsof life, trust and honer in truth of life then his actions will be there for too be good. where if a peson is in a state of dissharmoney/ not expressing ethics then their actions ill display it an result in this unhapyness. Ethics is our internl senceof right and wrong, our internl sence of what posative/harmonyous an a warning of wats not
p2/ Evrychild is an artist, the question is how to remain one as we grow up" Picasso By Adhirence to ethics/ our true human nature. the question of an action or a person is slightly silly for a human acts in life from what they know an who they are baed on what the know. so actions result from a humans current state, whitch may or may not be his actule nature because programed/routined desire is covering our true self, too much action is baced on what we be-lie-ve and not what we know or think.
perhaps you just watch too much House lol, he does have a similar grumbly smoker voice and pauses mid conversation -- but his overall presentation is much different. great video thanks
But what is "good" before we try to BE good. Take pork; is pork "good" or "evil"? Well, to Christians pork is "good", but to Jewish people pork is "bad"/ "sinful" and if you eat pork as a Jew you'd go to hell, but Christian never believe that to be true and they believe pork eaters also go to heaven. How can the same thing(pork) be BOTH "good & "evil"? So can we conclude that "good" & "evil" depend on someone's mentality or morality? So "good" & "evil" can only exist in our minds, not in nature.
good job, I liked this video, but it was not a very good lecture, I myself picked up on a couple of inconsistencies, but thank you for your work and time.
Part3/p3/ too much action comes from our routine instead of liveing directly as we should be, making decisions and choiseing actions. Good we aspire to be (calibrated to lifes meing), as humans we can again clearly see, once belief no longer clouds our being. We live in a sea learn to fit correctly according to the golden meing :D by The naked philosipher=me ;) 21centory philosiphy on your Path to Truth, good luck all
If Kant was a little too bound by the imperative to act like a good Christian, Schopenhaur's use of will is perhaps more naturally, neuroscientificallly constrained.
OK, so the categorical imperative is independent of any set of values, it is the manifestation of reason and not just a but *the* universal law of life...negative entropy
A Christian has a big advantage, Grace is given to us for every situation in our actions, not motivated by gaining rewards but by love to the neighbor, this is SUPER ethics,,
tawfiek jabbor so no motivation at all takes place huh? Like getting into heaven, grace, not going to hell, seeing God finally, none of that and more huh?
