The most excellent presentation of Kant's moral theory.

The weakness/limitation is easy as heck. Doesn't even require a whole video. Kant’s ethics drawback is that it's written by Kant! Jokes aside, as always, thank you so much for making the introduction to ethics so easy to access!

4:27 “all virtues can be used for good or evil” perfect yes exactly thank you

Just like Forrest Gump's mom: you explain things so that even *_I_* can understand! 😉

So basically, think good, you will act good or think well and you will do what is right. But that begs the question, who determines such moral duty?

@boredman1820

4 жыл бұрын

Maoist98 Your intentions is what determines the moral worth of the action. For the action to be good, it must pass the Categorical Imperative.

@islamchohra7771

3 жыл бұрын

maybe an unconscious divine command controls the categorical imperative

I find it really funny that for the first two hypothetical questions I gave an answer that Kant didn't say I would give. Overall, at least your articulation of Kant gives off the perception of some dude who's telling you what you feel, which makes it laughable to me when Kantian ethics is said to be objective. I mean, he literally appeals to my subjectivity!

I feel people get mixed up on virtue vs morality.

Is the soldier analogy your own? Or is it used by Kant in another work?

If you pay them, then you are treating them as an ends

I kant understand kant

@nay.m

2 жыл бұрын

was searching for this joke heh

I don't think there's any difference between "motive" and "expected consequences". Your motive for performing an action is the result you believe that action will have (or might have). I don't think any consequentialist would say that, in order for an action to be morally good, you have to actually achieve the intended consequence. So the soldier analogy doesn't work as an argument against consequentialism. In the analogy, both soldiers are acting in a manner that has the exact same expected results, so they both meet exactly the same requirements for moral action. And we do have control over the consequences of our actions, unless you believe in fatalism. If the soldiers hadn't tried to save 20 children, those children would have died, which is a different consequence than the result that occurred when the soldiers did try to save them. So clearly, the soldiers do have the ability to change the outcome of the situation.

@mysigt_

4 жыл бұрын

Joseph Noonan no, those are two different moral theories. Consequentialist are consequentialists because they focus on the actual consequences.

Weird way to being up Stalinism

@mysigt_

4 жыл бұрын

Maoist98 nope

@adheep399

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah I was a little thrown off when he said that