Kant & Categorical Imperatives: Crash Course Philosophy #35

Summary

This Crash Course Philosophy episode delves into Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, emphasizing the separation of morality and religion. Kant's categorical imperatives are explored, including the universalizability principle and the concept of treating people as ends, not means. The episode challenges viewers to consider moral truths through reason and respect for autonomy, even when counterintuitive, offering a foundational understanding of Kantian ethics.

Takeaways

• 📜 The script discusses the relationship between ethics and religion, contrasting Divine Command Theory and Natural Law with the idea that morality can be derived from reason alone.
• 🤔 Immanuel Kant is highlighted as a key figure who believed morality should be separate from religion and should be based on reason and consideration for others.
• 🔢 Kant introduced the concept of 'categorical imperatives', moral commands that must be followed regardless of personal desires, in contrast to 'hypothetical imperatives' which are based on achieving certain goals.
• 🌐 The first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universalizability principle, urging individuals to act according to maxims that could be universal laws without contradiction.
• 🙅‍♂️ Kant's ethics emphasize not lying or deceiving, even in situations where it might seem beneficial, as it violates the autonomy of others and treats them as a means to an end.
• 🤝 The second formulation of the categorical imperative focuses on treating humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means, acknowledging the intrinsic worth and autonomy of individuals.
• 🚫 Kant's philosophy suggests that moral actions cannot lead to contradictions, implying that stealing, for example, cannot be morally justified even in personal benefit.
• 🤔 The script presents a hypothetical scenario to illustrate the potential counterintuitive results of Kant's ethics, such as not lying to a murderer to protect someone's life.
• 🧐 The importance of recognizing and respecting the autonomy and rationality of individuals is emphasized, as it is central to Kant's moral philosophy.
• 🔄 The script points out that while we often use people as a means to achieve our goals, it is crucial to not reduce them to mere means, respecting their ends and interests.
• 🌟 The episode concludes by setting up a contrast with utilitarianism, which will be explored in a future episode, presenting it as an alternative to Kantian ethics.

Q & A

What is the main argument of the Divine Command Theory in the context of ethics?

The Divine Command Theory posits that what is considered good or bad is determined by a deity, suggesting that moral values are derived from religious commandments or divine will.

How does the Theory of Natural Law, as presented by Thomas Aquinas, relate to morality and God?

The Theory of Natural Law suggests that morality originates from humans but only because we were created by God, who endowed us with an innate moral sense.

What was Immanuel Kant's view on the relationship between religion and morality?

Immanuel Kant believed that religion and morality should be separate entities. He argued that morality should be based on reason and consideration for others, rather than religious doctrine.

What is the difference between hypothetical imperatives and categorical imperatives according to Kant?

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional statements that depend on personal desires or goals, whereas categorical imperatives are moral commands that must be followed regardless of one's desires.

Could you explain Kant's universalizability principle as a part of the categorical imperative?

The universalizability principle states that one should act only according to maxims that could be universally applied without contradiction, meaning that moral actions should be able to be made into universal laws.

What is the second formulation of the categorical imperative and what does it emphasize?

The second formulation of the categorical imperative emphasizes treating humanity as an end in itself, rather than as a mere means, highlighting the importance of recognizing and respecting the autonomy and inherent worth of individuals.

Why does Kant argue that lying is morally impermissible, even in situations where it might seem to prevent harm?

Kant argues that lying is impermissible because it violates the moral law of treating people as ends in themselves. Lying manipulates others and undermines their autonomy to make informed decisions.

What is the potential issue with Kant's universalizability principle when applied to situations like the one involving Elvira and Tony?

The issue is that Kant's principle may lead to counterintuitive results, such as suggesting that Elvira should not lie to protect Tony, because the universalization of lying would lead to contradictions and undermine the moral law.

How does Kant's concept of autonomy relate to the categorical imperative?

Autonomy is central to the categorical imperative because it underpins the idea that individuals have the rational ability to set their own goals and make decisions, which must be respected in moral actions.

What is the significance of the term 'ends-in-themselves' in Kant's ethical philosophy?

The term 'ends-in-themselves' signifies that humans are not merely tools to be used by others but have inherent value and should be treated with dignity and respect, in accordance with moral laws.

What is the main criticism of Kant's ethical theory presented in the script?

The main criticism is that Kant's ethical theory can sometimes lead to morally counterintuitive outcomes, such as the prohibition of lying in life-threatening situations, which some might consider as morally justifiable.

Outlines

00:00

📘 Ethics and Morality without God

This paragraph introduces the philosophical discussion on ethics, contrasting Divine Command Theory and the Theory of Natural Law, which attribute morality to a deity, with the views of Immanuel Kant. Kant believed in the separation of religion and morality, advocating for reason and consideration for others as the basis for moral judgment. He emphasized that moral truths should be constant and universal, akin to mathematical principles, and distinguished between hypothetical imperatives, which are based on personal desires, and categorical imperatives, which are moral obligations derived from pure reason and applicable to all, regardless of religious beliefs.

05:02

🔍 Kant's Categorical Imperatives and Moral Reasoning

The second paragraph delves into Kant's categorical imperatives, which are principles that guide moral actions. Kant proposed four formulations, with the first being the universalizability principle. This principle suggests that one should act according to a maxim that could be universally applied without contradiction. The paragraph provides an example involving stealing to illustrate the principle, highlighting the idea that moral actions should not lead to self-contradictory outcomes. The second part of the paragraph discusses a hypothetical scenario where lying could have unintended negative consequences, emphasizing Kant's stance against lying, even in situations that seem to warrant it for good reasons. The paragraph concludes by introducing the second formulation of the categorical imperative, which focuses on treating people as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end.

Keywords

💡Ethics

Ethics refers to the moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior. In the context of the video, ethics is the central theme, with various theories attempting to explain the origin and nature of moral judgments. The script discusses how ethics has traditionally been tied to religious beliefs, but also explores the idea of morality independent of divine command.

💡Divine Command Theory

Divine Command Theory is a philosophical theory that posits that moral requirements are derived from the commands of a deity. The video script mentions this theory as one that links morality to the will of God or gods, suggesting that what is good or bad is determined by divine authority.

💡Natural Law

Natural Law, as discussed in the script in relation to Thomas Aquinas, is a theory that suggests there are universal moral laws inherent in human nature, which are derived from our creation by God. It implies that our moral sensibilities are not arbitrary but are part of the natural order that God has established.

💡Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant is an 18th-century German philosopher renowned for his moral philosophy. The script highlights Kant's view that morality should be based on reason and consideration for others, rather than religious doctrines. Kant's approach to ethics is a central focus of the video.

💡Hypothetical Imperatives

Hypothetical imperatives, as explained in the script, are conditional directives that depend on an individual's desires or goals. They are not moral commands but rather practical advice based on what one wants to achieve, such as getting a job to earn money or studying to get good grades.

💡Categorical Imperatives

Categorical imperatives, according to Kant, are moral commands that must be followed regardless of personal desires. The script explains that these imperatives are derived from pure reason and are binding on all moral agents, emphasizing that moral law is universal and does not depend on religious beliefs.

💡Universalizability Principle

The universalizability principle, as described in the script, is the first formulation of the categorical imperative. It states that one should act only according to a maxim that can be willed as a universal law without contradiction. The script uses the example of stealing to illustrate how this principle works to determine moral actions.

💡Ends-in-Themselves

Ends-in-themselves, a concept from Kant's philosophy, refers to the inherent worth and dignity of individuals as rational and autonomous beings. The script explains that people should not be used merely as a means to an end, but should be respected for their own goals and interests, which is the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

💡Autonomy

Autonomy, in the context of the script, refers to the capacity of individuals to self-govern and make decisions based on their rational will. It is a key component of Kant's ethics, suggesting that every person has the moral right to be treated as an end-in-themselves, not merely as a means to someone else's ends.

💡Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a moral theory that is briefly mentioned at the end of the script as a contrasting view to Kantian ethics. It is a consequentialist theory that focuses on maximizing overall happiness or minimizing suffering by evaluating the outcomes of actions, rather than adhering to strict moral rules or principles.

💡Squarespace

Squarespace is a website creation platform that sponsors the Crash Course Philosophy series. While not a philosophical concept, it is relevant as the video script mentions it as the sponsor, highlighting the practical aspect of sharing ideas and passions through online platforms.

Highlights

Divine Command Theory posits that morality is determined by a deity.

Thomas Aquinas' Theory of Natural Law suggests morality originates from God-given moral sensibilities.

Immanuel Kant believed morality should be independent of religion and based on reason and consideration for others.

Kant viewed morality as constant and mathematical, similar to the universal truth of arithmetic.

Kant distinguished between moral obligations (categorical imperatives) and non-moral actions (hypothetical imperatives).

Hypothetical imperatives are conditional commands based on personal desires, unlike categorical imperatives which are unconditional.

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative is the universalizability principle, requiring actions to be universally applicable without contradiction.

The universalizability principle implies that stealing cannot be a universal action without leading to a logical contradiction.

Kant's ethics can lead to counterintuitive outcomes, such as the prohibition of lying even to protect someone's life.

The second formulation of the categorical imperative emphasizes treating people as ends in themselves, not as mere means.

Using someone as a mere means disregards their autonomy and capacity for self-governance.

Deception, such as lying, is morally impermissible as it undermines the autonomy of others.

Kant's categorical imperative aims to establish fixed moral truths applicable to all rational beings without divine intervention.

The episode will contrast Kantian ethics with utilitarianism in a future discussion, presenting a different ethical perspective.

Crash Course Philosophy is supported by Squarespace, offering an easy way to create websites for personal or business use.

The episode was produced in collaboration with PBS Digital Studios, offering a variety of educational content.

Transcripts

Crash Course Philosophy is brought to you by Squarespace.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but all of our discussions about ethics so far have had one thing in common: God.

Divine Command Theory, for example, argues that what’s good, and what’s not, are determined by a deity, whether that’s the God of Abraham, or a panoply of gods who come up with ethical rules by committee.

And the Theory of Natural Law, as advanced by Thomas Aquinas, says that morality comes from us but only because we were made by God, who preloaded us with moral sensibilities.

But many other thinkers have argued that humanity’s moral code doesn’t come from some supernatural force.

18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant, for one, thought religion and morality were a terrible pairing, and if anything, the two should be kept apart.

Instead, Kant argued, in order to determine what’s right, you have to use reason.

And a sense of consideration for other people.

And – at least the way I’m teaching it today – chom-choms.

[Theme Music]

Kant took morality pretty seriously, and he thought we should, too – all of us – regardless of our religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Because, he knew that if we look to religion for our morality, we’re not all going to get the same answer.

But he thought morality was a constant, in an almost mathematical sense.

Two plus two equals four, whether you’re a Christian, Buddhist, or atheist.

And for Kant, the same went for moral truths.

But he made a distinction between the things we ought to do morally, and the things we ought to do for other, non-moral reasons.

He pointed out that, most of the time, whether or not we ought to do something isn’t really a moral choice – instead, it’s just contingent on our desires.

Like, if your desire is to get money, then you ought to get a job.

If your desire is get an A in class, then you ought to study.

Kant called these if-then statements hypothetical imperatives.

They’re commands that you should follow if you want something.

But hypothetical imperatives are about prudence, rather than morality.

So, if you don’t want money, you can always choose not to work.

And if you don’t care about getting a good grade, studying becomes totally optional!

It’d be a terrible option, in my opinion as an educator, but still: optional.

But Kant viewed morality not in terms of hypothetical imperatives, but through what he called categorical imperatives.

These are commands you must follow, regardless of your desires.

Categorical imperatives are our moral obligations, and Kant believed that they’re derived from pure reason.

He said it didn’t matter whether you want to be moral or not – the moral law is binding on all of us.

And he said you don’t need religion to determine what that law is, because what’s right and wrong is totally knowable just by using your intellect.

OK, so how do you figure out what’s moral?

Kant said the categorical imperative can be understood in terms of various formulations.

Basically, different ways of phrasing or looking at the same essential idea.

And he came up with four formulations of the categorical imperative.

Let me tell you about the two most popular ones.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative is often known as the universalizability principle.

And Kant phrased it this way:

“Act only according to that maxim which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.”

OK, Kant. Pretty wordy guy. So let’s unpack what he was saying.

A maxim is just a rule or principle of action.

And a universal law is something that must always be done in similar situations.

So, as a Kantian, before I act, I would ask myself, what’s the maxim of my action?

In other words, what’s the general rule that stands behind the particular action I’m considering?

Let’s say you forgot your wallet in your dorm this morning.

You don’t have time to go get it between classes, and you’re really hungry.

You notice that the student working the snack kiosk in the union is engrossed in a conversation, and you could easily snag a banana and be on your way.

Sorry. Chom-chom. I mean: chom-chom.

You could easily swipe that chom-chom and be on your way.

Is it ok, morally, for you to do this?

Well, the particular action you’re considering – taking a chom-chom from a merchant without paying for it – is stealing.

And if you approve the maxim of stealing – which you’re doing, whether you admit it or not – then what you’re actually doing is universalizing that action.

You’re saying that everyone should always steal.

If you should be able to do it, then – everyone should be able to do it.

The thing is, this leads to a contradiction – and remember:

Kant’s wording specifically says that moral actions cannot bring about contradictions.

The contradiction here is: no one would say that everyone should steal all the time.

Because, if everyone should always steal, then you should steal the chom-chom.

And then I should steal it back from you, and then you should steal it back from me, and it would never end and no one would ever get to eat any chom choms.

Therefore, stealing isn’t universalizable.

So what Kant’s really saying is that it’s not fair to make exceptions for yourself.

You don’t really think stealing is ok, and by imagining what it would be like to universalize it, that becomes clear.

Now, Kant’s view that moral rules apply to everyone equally sounds nice and fair.

But it can sometimes lead to some pretty counterintuitive results.

To see how this formulation can go awry, let’s visit the Thought Bubble for some Flash Philosophy.

Let’s say, one morning, Elvira and Tony are having breakfast.

Then a stranger comes to the door and asks where Tony is, so he can kill him.

Obviously, Elvira’s impulse is to lie, and say that Tony isn’t around right now in order to protect him from this would-be murderer.

But Kant says that she can’t lie – not ever, not even to save Tony’s life.

Here’s his reasoning:

Suppose she’s at the front door, talking to the stranger.

At the time, she thinks Tony’s in the kitchen, where she left him.

But it turns out he was curious about the caller, so he followed her into the living room, and heard the stranger make his threats.

Fearing for his life, Tony slipped out the back door.

Meanwhile Elvira, in her desire to save him, tells the stranger that Tony isn’t there, even though she thinks he is.

Based on her lie, the stranger leaves, and runs into Tony as he rounds the corner heading away from the house, and kills him.

Had she told the truth, the stranger might have headed into the kitchen looking for Tony, which would have given Tony time to escape.

But she didn’t.

Now, by Kant’s reasoning, Elvira is responsible for Tony’s death, because her lie caused it.

Had she told the truth, only the murderer would have been responsible for any deaths that might have occurred.

Now, she could have refused to answer the stranger altogether, or tried to talk him out of it.

But the one thing she is never permitted to do is violate the moral law, even if others are doing so, even for a really good cause.

Poor Tony. Very sad. But thanks, Thought Bubble!

So, the first formulation of the categorical imperative is about the universality of our actions.

But the second formulation focuses on how we should treat other people.

And it goes this way:

“Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end, and never as a mere means.”

Again, we have to define some terms here to figure out what this is all about.

To use something as a “mere means” is to use it only for your own benefit, with no thought to the interests or benefit of the thing you’re using.

Now, we use things as mere means all the time.

I use this mug to hold my coffee, and if it would stop benefiting me – like if it got a crack in it and started leaking, I wouldn’t use it anymore.

It’s perfectly fine to use things as mere means – but not humans.

This is because we are what Kant called ends-in-ourselves.

We are not mere objects that exist to be used by others.

We’re our own ends. We’re rational and autonomous.

We have the ability to set our own goals, and work toward them.

Coffee mugs exist for coffee drinkers.

Humans exist for themselves.

So, to treat someone as an end-in-herself means to recognize the humanity of the person you’re encountering, to realize that she has goals, values, and interests of her own, and you must, morally, keep that in mind in your encounters with her.

Now, Kant pointed out that we do use people, all the time, and that’s ok.

Because, most of time time, we use other people as a means for something, but not as a mere means.

We still recognize their humanity when we use them, and they agree to being used.

So, for example, you are using me right now to get information about Kantian ethics.

I am using Nick and Nicole to help me get that information to you.

Kant said that you and I, and Nick and Nicole – we all we deserve to not be used as mere means, because of our autonomy.

Unlike other things in the world, we’re self-governed.

We’re able to set our own ends, to make our own free decisions based on our rational wills.

We can set goals for ourselves, and take steps to realize those goals.

This imbues us with an absolute moral worth, Kant said, which means that we shouldn’t be manipulated, or manipulate other autonomous agents for our own benefit.

And this means that things like lying and deception are never OK.

Because if I’m being deceived, I can’t make an autonomous decision about how to act, because my decision is based on false information.

For instance, I might agree to loan you money so you can buy books for school, but I wouldn’t agree to loan you money so that you can get a new Xbox.

I’m sorry, but no.

So when you lie to me about what you’re gonna be doing with the money you’re asking for, you rob me of my ability to autonomously decide to help you.

You’ve treated me as a mere means to accomplish your goals, with no thought to my own goals and interests.

And that’s a violation of Kant’s second categorical imperative.

So! Kant argued that proper, rational application of the categorical imperative will lead us to moral truth that is fixed and applicable to all moral agents.

No God required.

Of course, not everyone agreed with him.

So next time we’re going to check out a theory that is in many ways the antithesis of Kantianism: utilitarianism.

Today we learned about Kant’s ethics.

We talked about hypothetical and categorical imperatives, the universalizability principle, autonomy, and what it means to treat people as ends-in-themselves, rather than as mere means.

This episode of Crash Course Philosophy is made possible by Squarespace.

Squarespace is a way to create a website, blog or online store for you and your ideas.

Squarespace features a user-friendly interface, custom templates and 24/7 customer support.

Try Squarespace at squarespace.com/crashcourse for a special offer.

Squarespace: share your passion with the world.

Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association with PBS Digital Studios.

You can head over to their channel and check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like:

Deep Look, First Person, and PBS Game Show.

This episode of Crash Course was filmed in the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio

with the help of all of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.