The Categorial Imperative & Problems for Kantian Ethics

Summary

This transcript delves into Immanuel Kant's deontological ethics, focusing on the 'Humanity as an End' formula of the categorical imperative. It emphasizes treating individuals as ends, not mere means, and explores the implications for self-respect and interpersonal relations. The discussion highlights the limitations of deontological ethics, such as the uniformity of moral wrongness and the challenge of moral dilemmas, contrasting it with consequentialist intuitions. The summary also touches on the importance of duty, character, and genuine care in moral actions, suggesting that morality extends beyond rule-following.

Takeaways

• 📜 The Humanity as an End formula is one of Kant's formulations of the categorical imperative, emphasizing treating humanity as an end and never merely as a means.
• 🚫 Kant argues that one should not sell oneself into slavery or commit suicide, as these actions treat a person as a means to an end rather than as an end in themselves.
• 🤝 It is permissible to treat others as a means to an end, but only if they can rationally consent to being used in that way, as in the case of a student using a teacher to learn or a plumber fixing a toilet.
• 🚫 The categorical imperative is criticized for not accounting for the varying weights of duties, suggesting that all actions are wrong for the same reason—violating the imperative.
• 💥 Moral dilemmas, such as Sophie's Choice, challenge the categorical imperative by presenting situations where moral rules conflict, and it's impossible to act without violating one.
• 🤔 Deontological ethics may conflict with consequentialist intuitions, as it suggests that there are duties that must be followed regardless of the consequences, even if they lead to a worse outcome.
• 🌐 The categorical imperative is supposed to provide moral rules for every situation, but it struggles with cases where the rules themselves might conflict, leaving no clear moral path.
• 💔 The theory of deontological ethics is questioned for potentially overlooking the importance of character, emotions, and the spirit behind actions, focusing solely on adherence to rules.
• 🎓 The lecture suggests that morality involves more than just following rules; it includes genuine care, love, and concern for others, which deontological ethics might not fully capture.
• 📚 The discussion of deontological ethics in the script serves as an introduction to more applied ethical discussions and theoretical explorations in moral philosophy.

Q & A

What is the Humanity as an End formula according to Kant?

The Humanity as an End formula states that one should act in such a way that humanity, whether in one's own person or in the person of any other, is always treated as an end and never merely as a means.

Why is it wrong to sell oneself into slavery according to Kantian ethics?

It is wrong to sell oneself into slavery because it involves treating oneself as a means to an end, giving up all one's rights, which one cannot rationally consent to do.

What is the difference between treating someone as a means and treating them as a mere means?

Treating someone as a means implies using them for some purpose to which they can rationally consent, like a plumber fixing a toilet for payment. Treating someone as a mere means involves using them in a way they could not rationally agree to, such as lying to them for personal gain.

Can you provide an example from the script where the categorical imperative is applied?

An example given is the scenario where a student might lie to a teacher about why they couldn't complete an assignment. The student treats the teacher as a mere means by lying, which the teacher could not rationally consent to.

What is the issue of the relative weight of duties in deontological ethics?

The issue is that deontological ethics, which focuses on duty and adherence to the categorical imperative, does not account for the varying severity or weight of different moral wrongs, treating all violations equally.

How do moral dilemmas challenge the categorical imperative?

Moral dilemmas challenge the categorical imperative by presenting situations where moral rules conflict, and it is impossible to adhere to all duties without violating at least one, such as the dilemma of choosing which child to save in Sophie's Choice.

What is the consequentialist intuition, and how does it conflict with deontological ethics?

The consequentialist intuition is the belief that the morality of an action is determined by its outcome. It conflicts with deontological ethics because the latter is based on duty and adherence to rules, regardless of the consequences.

Why does the script suggest that morality involves more than just following rules?

The script suggests that morality involves more than just following rules because actions motivated by genuine care, love, and concern, rather than just duty, are more meaningful and significant in moral situations.

What is the problem with viewing morality strictly as rule-following according to the script?

Viewing morality strictly as rule-following is problematic because it overlooks the importance of intentions, emotions, and the context of actions, which are essential aspects of moral behavior.

How does the script illustrate the difference between acting out of duty versus acting out of love or care?

The script illustrates this difference through examples, such as giving roses to one's spouse or visiting a friend in the hospital, where acting out of genuine affection is more valued and meaningful than simply fulfilling a duty.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Humanity as an End: Kant's Categorical Imperative

This paragraph discusses Immanuel Kant's 'Humanity as an End' formula from his categorical imperative. It emphasizes treating humanity, whether in oneself or others, always as an end and never merely as a means. The speaker unpacks this concept by explaining that one should not sell oneself into slavery or commit suicide, as these actions treat a person as a means to an end. The paragraph also touches on the idea that it's acceptable to use someone as a means to an end if they can rationally consent to it, such as a student using a teacher to learn or a plumber fixing a toilet. The speaker argues that it's wrong to use people to attain goals they wouldn't rationally consent to, highlighting the importance of respect and the avoidance of manipulation for one's own good.

05:01

🤔 Challenges to Deontological Ethics

The second paragraph delves into the challenges and criticisms of deontological ethics, particularly Kant's categorical imperative. It raises the issue of the relative weight of duties, suggesting that deontological ethics fails to account for the varying severity of moral wrongs, as everything is deemed wrong for the same reason—violation of the categorical imperative. The paragraph also discusses the concept of moral dilemmas, where moral rules may conflict, and the categorical imperative does not provide a clear resolution, such as in the case of Sophie's Choice. Additionally, it points out the tension between deontological ethics and consequentialist intuitions, where the former emphasizes adherence to rules regardless of consequences, while the latter considers the outcomes of actions. The speaker uses the example of torturing an innocent to save many to illustrate this conflict.

10:02

💖 Beyond Rules: The Role of Character in Morality

The final paragraph critiques the deontological focus on rules by arguing that morality involves more than just rule-following. It contrasts two scenarios involving gift-giving and hospital visits to illustrate the importance of genuine feelings and intentions over mere duty. The speaker suggests that actions motivated by love and care, rather than a sense of obligation, are more meaningful and morally significant. This perspective challenges the Kantian view that adhering to moral rules is sufficient for ethical behavior, implying that a deeper, more personal engagement with moral situations is necessary for a complete understanding of morality.

Keywords

💡Categorical Imperative

The Categorical Imperative is a philosophical concept introduced by Immanuel Kant, which serves as the fundamental principle of his moral philosophy. It is a rule or set of rules that Kant believed would yield the same moral rules for everyone. In the video, the Categorical Imperative is discussed in the context of the 'humanity as an end' formula, which emphasizes treating people as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end. The script uses examples such as not selling oneself into slavery or not killing oneself to illustrate the application of the Categorical Imperative.

💡Humanity as an End

This concept from Kantian ethics is a specific formulation of the Categorical Imperative. It dictates that one should act in such a way that humanity, whether in one's own person or in the person of any other, is always treated as an end and never merely as a means. The video script explains this by stating that individuals should not be used merely as a tool to achieve some other goal, but should be respected for their inherent worth. The lecturer uses the example of a student using the teacher as a means to learn, which is acceptable because the teacher can rationally consent to this use.

💡Mere Means

In the context of the video, 'mere means' refers to the improper treatment of individuals as if they were objects or tools to be used solely for the purpose of achieving some other end without considering their intrinsic value. The script contrasts this with treating someone as an 'end,' which involves respecting their autonomy and dignity. The lecturer argues that it is wrong to treat people as mere means because it violates their rational consent and dignity, as exemplified by the unethical nature of slavery or deceit.

💡Deontological Ethics

Deontological ethics is a category of moral theory that is duty-based and focuses on the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, rather than their consequences. The video discusses deontological ethics through the lens of Kant's philosophy, emphasizing the importance of following moral rules, such as the Categorical Imperative, regardless of the outcomes. The script points out potential issues with deontological ethics, such as the lack of consideration for the relative weight of duties or the existence of moral dilemmas.

💡Moral Dilemmas

Moral dilemmas are situations where an individual is faced with two or more conflicting moral obligations, making it difficult to determine the right course of action. The video script mentions moral dilemmas to challenge the deontological approach, suggesting that sometimes moral rules can conflict, and a strict adherence to the Categorical Imperative might not provide a clear resolution. An example given is the scenario where one must choose between returning a borrowed item that could be used to harm someone or withholding it to prevent harm.

💡Consequentialist Intuitions

Consequentialist intuitions refer to the belief that the morality of an action is determined by its outcomes or consequences. The video script contrasts these intuitions with deontological ethics, suggesting that sometimes the ends can justify the means, which is at odds with the deontological stance that the morality of an act is inherent and not dependent on its consequences. The lecturer questions whether it is always wrong to cause harm if it leads to a greater good, thus challenging the absolute nature of deontological rules.

💡Rational Consent

Rational consent is the ability of a rational individual to agree or disagree with how they are being treated or used. In the video, the concept is used to explain the limits of treating someone as a means. The lecturer argues that it is acceptable to use someone as a means to an end if they can rationally consent to it, but not if it would violate their rights or dignity. Examples include the plumber fixing a toilet, where the use is based on a mutual agreement and payment, versus slavery, where consent is not truly possible due to the inherent loss of rights.

💡Duty vs. Character

The video script contrasts duty, which is the obligation to perform certain actions as dictated by moral rules, with character, which involves the motivations and feelings that drive one's actions. The lecturer suggests that while duty is important in deontological ethics, character and the emotional context of actions are also crucial for morality. Examples given include giving a gift out of love versus out of a sense of obligation, where the latter lacks the warmth and genuine care that the former conveys.

💡Sophie's Choice

Sophie's Choice is a reference to a film and novel where a mother is forced to choose which of her children will be killed by the Nazis. The video uses this as an example of a moral dilemma where the Categorical Imperative fails to provide a satisfactory solution, as any choice would involve violating the duty to protect one's children. This example is used to illustrate the limitations of deontological ethics in the face of complex moral situations.

💡Reductio Ad Absurdum

Reductio ad absurdum is a logical argument that attempts to demonstrate that a certain proposition must be false because it inevitably leads to an absurd or contradictory conclusion. In the video, reductio arguments are mentioned as a way to challenge deontological ethics by showing that if these ethics are true, they would lead to outcomes that we intuitively find unacceptable, thus casting doubt on the validity of the ethics.

Highlights

Kant's categorical imperative suggests treating humanity as an end, not a means.

The humanity formula of the categorical imperative applies to how one treats oneself and others.

Examples given include prohibitions against selling oneself into slavery and committing suicide.

The concept of treating someone as a means to an end is explained with the example of a student using a teacher.

The categorical imperative is said to be wrong if it uses people to attain goals they could not rationally consent to.

The idea that one cannot rationally consent to being used in a way that compromises their freedom is discussed.

Lying and cheating are presented as ways of treating others as mere means, which is morally wrong.

The problem of the relative weight of duties in deontological ethics is introduced.

The issue of moral dilemmas and conflicting duties is explored, using the example of Sophie's Choice.

The conflict between deontological ethics and consequentialist intuitions is highlighted.

The example of torturing one person to save many is used to question the absoluteness of moral rules.

The argument that morality involves more than just following rules is presented.

The importance of character and genuine feelings in moral actions is discussed, contrasting with mere duty.

The conclusion emphasizes that deontological ethics may miss essential aspects of morality beyond rule-following.

Transcripts

now we're talking about the humanity as

an n formula i think it's a little bit

easier for students to follow this one

uh remember though for kant all five of

the ways that he

formulates the categorical imperative

he believes would bring about the same

moral rules for everyone and so you know

people have disagreed about that uh but

uh

these are that's the way that he

presented it at least so the humanity as

an

end formula i said before is act so that

you treat humanity

importantly whether in your own person

or in that of another

always as an end and never as a means

only or you'll hear it as mere means

okay so let me kind of unpack that way

first of all he says uh always treat

humanity whether in your own person or

in that of another that's this also

tells you how you're permitted to treat

yourself as well as how you're permitted

to treat others so for example and we'll

talk about it you're not allowed to sell

yourself into slavery you're not allowed

to kill yourself

and there's more to be said about that

and then he says never as a means only

do not treat somebody as a means that's

an end so when you treat somebody as an

end you treat somebody in the way that

they um

talent for themselves if you treat

somebody as a means you're using them to

get something else now he says you can't

treat somebody as a means

only or as a mere

means you can treat somebody as a means

to an end

you right now are treating me as a means

to an end you are wanting to

do well in this class or to get credits

for this class so that you can go on to

transfer it or get a degree or whatever

you're using me as a means maybe to

learn something

but you're using me in a way that i can

agree to be used in fact i love being

used that way and i hope you all call

into my office hours and find out more

call into my office and

and talk to me and we

learn more together because i really

enjoy talking about this stuff i'm a

nerd i like philosophy

and so you're treating me in a way that

i could rationally consent to uh i had a

plumber out to my house and it was a

nasty job you know plumbing clogged and

all that kind of stuff to fix the toilet

and he did it but

he could agree to be used in that way i

was given the money to do that kind of

thing and that's that was the career

that he chose um and so we could have um

you can treat somebody as a means but

not as a mere means you can't treat me

in a way in which i could not rationally

consent to and i'll explain what that

means

in more detail the idea with this

formulation of the categorical

imperative it is wrong to use people to

attain some goal to which that person if

they were being perfectly rational could

not themselves consent you have to treat

people with respect you cannot

manipulate them for your own good or

another's good okay so there's a lot to

unpack with that too um we know that

people could like if they're really

depressed uh they could say yeah you can

you know

arrest me

for this crime i didn't commit or

something like that we can know that

people can agree to things you know

being in relationships that are harmful

we know that people can agree to things

that aren't rational so we're saying if

a person was being perfectly rational we

could only treat them in a way that they

could agree to be used we can't

manipulate them for our own good so like

i said it's okay to have a plumber come

over to your house and repair your dirty

toilet if it's dirty for a reasonable

payment you're using her the plumber as

a means but in a way that she can

rationally consent

but it would be wrong to purchase

someone as a slave even if they

consented

first it would be wrong because

a person doesn't have the right to sell

themselves into slavery

because

what we look at is that um

when we talk about you have to treat

somebody as an end even yourself

treating giving yourself into slavery

would be to treat yourself as a means to

an end you wouldn't be treating yourself

as in itself because you and in slavery

you give up all of your other rights so

you couldn't rationally consent to give

up your rights because you can't use

your rights to give up your rights same

thing he would say with suicide you

can't

agree to kill yourself because that

would be giving up your rights and you

can't use your rights to justify giving

up your rights so you can't rationally

consent to giving away your freedom but

it's also

you can't um uh

you don't have the right to treat

somebody uh as just a means towards your

end in that in this direction of the

formula um they would uh it would be

wrong to treat yourself as a means and

it would be wrong to

take somebody's freedom from them and so

that's a classic way of using somebody

as a mere means so if you think about it

lying is the same way when you lie to me

about and i'm pretty gullible i love my

students i love

helping students and so if people lie to

me i'm usually going to believe it but

that's treating me in a way i can't

rationally agree to be used right if i

could rationally agree to it you could

say look michael i

played around and i didn't have time to

do the assignment can i make it up or

something that probably would let you um

with some points deducted but you don't

want the points deducted so you lied to

me you say oh my grandmother died or i

have coveted or whatever you know thing

that you come up with

would be some kind of um deception and

that would be using me in a way i

couldn't rationally agree to i can't

rationally agree to be lied to that

would be using me as a mere means

cheating on a test would be using me and

your fellow students as a mere means so

you can't treat somebody as a mere means

you always have to treat them as an end

and never as a means only all right so

let me talk about some problems for

deontological ethics

there's a few reductio arguments

remember we talked about reductio

arguments several times already reductio

ad absurdum arguments that if deonte

logical ethics are true then these are

true but we don't think these are true

so that gives us reasons to doubt the

ophthalmological ethics so here we go

the first is the relative weight of

duties the problem from the relative

weight of duties um

for deontological ethics the wrongness

of the act is always that it violates

the categorical imperative everything is

wrong for the same reason it violates

the you know the categorical imperatives

um

it's wrong to murder because it violates

the categorical imperative it's wrong to

deceive because it violates the

categorical comparative but we can see

that those are really different things

they're wrong not just because it seems

at least they're not wrong just because

they violate some rule

you know jaywalking is wrong because it

violates the categorical imperative

murder is wrong because i mean we punish

people differently for those violations

we punish people more harshly for those

violations and you can't make that

distinction if everything is wrong for

the same reason that's just wrong

because it violates the categorical

imperative why is it wrong to murder you

know

it doesn't it treats humanity from their

means but it seems like it does more

than that we want to say that the weight

of some wrongs are more than the weight

of others but there's no way to do that

by the categorical imperative everything

is wrong for the same reason

also it seems like there's true moral

dilemmas in the world sometimes it seems

obvious that moral rules conflict uh

we're obligated to return things that we

borrow but it would clearly be wrong if

a depressed friend comes over and says i

want to shoot myself and um

you know

can i have my gun back

then we kind of have or i hate my

wife i'm going to kill her can i

have my axe back clearly we have this

obligation to return things that we

borrow but not in that case right we i

i'm not giving my neighbor an axe if

he's going to hurt his spouse right

even if i borrowed that axe from him

which i wouldn't borrow on axe in my

neighborhood but you know it was still

the same um

those obligations seem to conflict but

what the categorical imperative is

supposed to do is to give us the moral

rules for every situation and if they

conflict they're not giving us the right

moral rule uh you might have seen an old

movie called sophie's choice where this

evil nazi you know they're standing in

lines he will not at a concentration

camp and evil nazi comes up and starts

messing with this uh woman meryl streep

and says

finally you know wants to mess with her

really bad and says i'm going to take

one of your children uh to be killed

right now

you pick which one it is the boy or the

girl and if you don't

choose which one i'm going to kill them

both and she's has such a hard time you

see it on her face and finally she says

take the girl take the girl you know and

then she can't live with that in the

book for the rest of her life but um

that was a

choice where it's your you have an equal

duty to protect your son an equal duty

to protect your daughter but in that

case you're not

you can't

this is a moral dilemma you are going to

be wrong either way you go and the

categorical imperative will give you

moral rules but these sometimes can

conflict

um

also a problem with uh

this

view that some people have pointed out

is that it conflicts with our

consequentialist intuitions um it seems

strange to think um for some people to

think that we sometimes have a duty to

make the world a worse place than it

would have been if we had chosen another

act we have this very strong utilitarian

consequentialist intuition and um

so we would say yeah you know i can't

torture this innocent person to save

another person uh but what if it's

torture this innocent person to save 10

or 100 or 10 million or a billion or the

entire planet right at some point that

consequentialist intuition breaks our

will to obey the rule um absolute rules

can never be violated regardless of the

consequences but in so much as that

consequentialist intuition inside us is

correct that would be a problem for

categorical comparative can i really

is it really wrong to

torture one person if the whole planet

all of human

all of humanity is

is saved is it wrong to torture

an animal an innocent animal if all of

humanity would be safe right that

consequentialist intuition kind of works

against this rule-based theory

and then lastly and this is the one

that's more convincing for me the

problem that's more convincing for me is

that it seems that there's a lot more

involved with morality than simply

following rules uh let's say that

it's my wife's and my anniversary and i

come up and i bring her

roses and i knock on the door and she

opens the door she says for me why so

much i'm stealing this example from a

preacher for me why so much and i say

because i

just want to be near you or let's say

instead i i come up and i give her the

roses and just for me why so much and i

said you know what i've studied i'm a

good content and i know what husbands

are obligated to do in these situations

i know i was obligated to give you a

gift and take you out and so i just want

you to know my

my character is sound and i don't think

that would go over very well with my

wife right

my duty my obligation but if i said oh

because i just want to spend time with

you i just can't wait to take you out

it's not like in that situation uh duty

and character and that kind of stuff is

what's really important in

the situation what's important is what i

feel about her and what i want to do

because i love her uh imagine another

instance where i'm visiting a friend in

the hospital and my friend is in so much

pain and they ask why why did you come

to visit me and i go you know what

i know what i'm a content and i know

what friends are supposed to do in this

situation i don't want to be here and i

don't like hospitals or anything like

that but i just want you to know my

character sound and i'm here

my friend isn't going to be very honored

by that right if i said you know i knew

you're hurting i just wanted to be near

you and i was hoping that somehow my

presence would help in some way ease

your suffering because i love you so

much

then my friend would

be honored it seems that duty is cold

and misses something important in

morality that morality consists of more

than just doing what you're supposed to

do my friend wouldn't like if i came and

visited him out of duty but if i came

and visited him out of love and care and

concern right that would be important

but for kantian it's the rules right as

long as you're following the rules

you're doing the right thing

so

it seems that it's missing something

really important that morality is more

than just following rules and if these

intuitions are correct then we have

reason to doubt that deontological

content ethics are the right is the

right moral theory all right i hope you

enjoyed our brief little uh

dive into content rule-based ethics

we're going to do some more applied

stuff and then we'll

go back to some more theory stuff later

all right i hope you enjoyed it