What is a Good Act? | Immanuel Kant Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals

Подписаться 25 тыс.

Просмотров 1,1 тыс.

50% 1

In the first part of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant starts by examining the importance of a good will. Virtues such as intelligence or courage can turn evil if the will guiding them is not good. Therefore a good will might be considered to be good in itself without further qualifications.
After this, he turns to the concept of duty. To do an action according to duty is to do it simply out of respect for that duty and not for any external motivation. Here, we see Kant yet again dismissing the effects or intended effects of our actions but rather wants us to turn our focus to the action itself and our intent behind that action.
Finally, Kant gives his first formulation of the categorical imperative. This formulations states that we should not act unless we will that the maxim of our actions shall become a universal law. Many people try to simplify this and equate it to the golden rule (do unto others as you would have done to yourself). This, however, oversimplifies it by ignoring the larger universality of these maxims. Instead, a more accurate simplification might be "do unto others as you would have done to yourself and everyone else in the world.
#philosophy #ethics #moral
Instagram: amygdalacomics
Donations: ko-fi.com/philosophytoons
Business Email: amygdalavids@gmail.com

Опубликовано:

28 апр 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 14

@maaleladel4622 2 месяца назад

the monster reference made this video even more amazing . loved the touch hhhhh

@joneskiller8 2 месяца назад

Dude, no one has ever made these concepts as easy as you have, and you did it with such clarity. A person with a low-functioning brain capacity like mine could have never fully understood anything of that if it was not for your breakdown. Cheers!

@PhilosophyToons 2 месяца назад

Thank you so much!

@aesop1451 2 месяца назад

I've seen your William James Pragmatism series as well as your video on Emerson. I would love to see a video on Alfred North Whitehead and process philosophy.

@clyntmedia 2 месяца назад

those 8 mins flew by, very well thought out video.

@PhilosophyToons 2 месяца назад

Thank you!

@baiterfish7901 2 месяца назад

I always wanted to study philosophy at university but ended up going with another path. These videos really help me to scratch that itch

@PhilosophyToons 2 месяца назад

Thank you for your kind words!

@WaruiDeshou Месяц назад

I've long been fascinated by Kant but have had trouble nailing him down, so this breakdown is much appreciated. Perhaps you could help me understand something. Re: duty Kant says that the good will wants to act morally not because of the act's effect but because of devotion to the duty regardless of effect. But, when formulating the categorical imperative, he appeals to effects and outcomes (do the thing you would want everyone else to do to everyone else). This seeming inconsistency bothers me a bit, but perhaps I am not fully grasping the relationship between duty and the CI or some underlying commitment to universality that makes these two justifications cohere. Could you shed some light on any of this?

@rovic2hacking505 2 месяца назад

Hello

@lorenzocapitani8666 2 месяца назад

Duty is not necessarily good, the reason for this statement is that in doing ones duty, many people don't necessarily do good. Consider how many people do their duty in modern society, bringing to a polluted planet. If workers worked less, there might be less pollution. Lies can be good, the reason why lies can be good is that they can save and they can result in good action (consider a mother that lies to a sick child calming it down and through the calming, maybe saves the child).

@lorenzocapitani8666 2 месяца назад

The path to hell is paved with good intentions. You need a definition of goodness before you determine if the good intention is good, the reason is that without a benchmark (which is the definition) on which to measure your good act, you risk being blinded by culture in defining what is good, when it is not good. Goodness looks at the results more than the means. Decency looks at the means, but goodness accepts lacks of ethics, immorality, criminality - so long that it brings good results (is robin hood good?). Somethings are decent - but not good - we mistake decency with goodness. Charity is Decent but not necessarily good, the reason is that nothing is said with what the money you give in charity will be used for, it could be used for something not good. Kant you messed up and you got it wrong!

@PhilosophyToons 2 месяца назад

Are you more a fan of Utilitarianism?

@lorenzocapitani8666 2 месяца назад

@@PhilosophyToons No, I embrace utruism as well, and utruism gives no direct return from ones act - indipendently to whether they are good or bad. But goodness has a good dose of utilitarianism even if it does understand utruism, and the reason we can say so is that goodness concentrates on the results (something similar to returns) in order to maximise the goodness produced (thus, as you noted, goodness is very utilitarian). Decency is maybe more utruist than goodness, for it embraces the virtue of self-sacrifice, while goodness tends to avoid sacrifice, and the reason for that is that harming oneself, if one is good, is not good, (even if as I said, its an act that can be understood by goodness). However harming oneself can be decent. The act of harming oneself, if one is good, could diminush the overall potential of goodness produced, going on occasions against the survival of the good one diminushing its riches, and that goes against what we can consider the utilitarian aspect of the good which is to benefit the good (Not to benefit the bad. Charity is not necessarily good for it can benefit the bad to the detriment of the good, but charity is noble and virtuos for it involves sacrifice. Charity is decent) - Benefitting the good is not necessarily decent and the reason for which it can be non decent, is that such benefit might go against morals, even if it would be a good act. Decency looks at morals, and tends to adhere to morals, even if it can deviate from morals. So Decency and goodness are different concepts that quite often are confused when considering goodness. Decency CAN be noble. Goodness however prefers vileness and the reason for this is that vileness obtains results without necessarily harming oneself. Vileness: Lowness of morals which achieves results. A blow under the belt if you are fighting someone - Not noble, not decent, but good and the reason why its good is because it achieves great results with less harm involved for the good one.