Always fond of your uploads, Prof. Bonevac. I’ve come into a renewed interest in Kant and I’ve been using your old videos to study up. Interesting to see you in the news these days too! Thanks always for the great content.
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the laws of Texas above me and the rules of grammar within me.
I think Kant's view on ethics makes more sense if we accept the idea that he is attempting to apply Rousseau's concept of the general will to ethics. “All wills lie in one will,” said Kant. Rousseau was also interested in universality -- eliminating all the particular wills that contradict each other to arrive at a general will. But of course he was more interested in the political. I like that term "compossible."
this is really heart warming but then again what about the people identify themselves as religious are they to be categorized rational in their own sense or harmful to rationality ? what about their laws of morality or the way they trying to approach their ethics ?recently iranian president died as you know .is it morally right to be happy about it ?or he had to be respected as a human being in his own way ?
So based on the Categorical Imperative, if I can universalize the maxim that all people should speak their truth, whatever it may be, regardless of the feelings of others, so long as it does not DIRECTLY lead to them experiencing physical pain, then they can themselves share their truth with the community ad nauseam. This means that if this person was a racist, they could tell other people their racist thoughts, so long as that other person was free to share their thoughts, and the racist would be moral in doing this.
No-physical pain is irrelevant-it would fail to treat people with respect as ends in themselves, and thus would fail to be universalizable, since all rational beings value their own rationality.
@@PhiloofAlexandria I (the hypothetical I here who is a racist, sexist, etc. for the means of this argument alone) would consider telling the truth, my truth, as respecting everyone. My understanding is that Kant held one ought to tell the truth at all cost, including if an axe murderer came to your door and asked "Where is your wife?" To lie for her sake is wrong; all you can do is what is honest and let the chips fall where they may. So from my perspective, telling my truth and everyone telling their truth is the respectful way forward and it does treat people as ends in themselves. It is treating other people as they have value in themself and not because they can protect my status, enhance my career, keep me safe, etc. Every time I lie to someone and do not share my racist, misogynist, etc. perspective it is because I am using them as a means to maintain my career, not be cancelled, not get attacked by a group who took offense to my words, etc. To treat them as an end in themselves should I not tell the truth at all cost at all times? This stops me from treating my interactions with them as a means to my comfort, safety, contentment, status, etc. and honestly treat them as an end in themselves.
Good will is not good if it merely comes from logical thinking, then it should be called logical will. As in if every rational being will come to the same conclusion, then everyone is good; if everyone do not come to the same conclusion, then not everyone is rational - then they are exempt from that “respect for automomy”?
What did Jesus say when he was called good? "There is only one that is good." I think Kant is really contradictory. He has a way of hiding his contradictions in jargon. In Christian tradition how is morality viewed? In the book of Job it is made clear that morality does not insure you (indemnify) against suffering. What is Kant trying to say about morality, with these Biblical views in mind? That the goodness he prescribes and formulates from "reason" is equivalent to God's goodness? Obviously not, as God's will is not equal to man's will. So what then? That behavior prescribed by reason is the only impulse that can be called morality? That the "traditions" of morality prescribed by Religions are not..valid? That his formula of morality is infallible? Infallible to whom? To one's self or God? The flaw in his thinking is that he disregards the past, or, more specifically, the unknown. Who can imagine a "universal law"? Even the Laws of Physics have exceptions. Was Kant conceited? It is a wonder no philosopher made his own reputation refuting and exposing Kant. His jargon is beyond forgiveness. Much less interpretation.
