00:00:00
no producing WGBH Boston asociado
00:00:02
Harvard University
00:00:04
Wow a quasar certifies e-justice from
00:00:13
Michael Sandel
00:00:22
today we turn back to Kahn before we do
00:00:28
remember this is the week by the end of
00:00:33
which all of you will basically get
00:00:37
can't figure out what he's up to
00:00:39
you're laughing no it will happen Kant's
00:00:48
groundwork is about two big questions
00:00:55
first what is the supreme principle of
00:00:59
morality second how is freedom possible
00:01:09
two big questions now one way of making
00:01:17
your way through this dense
00:01:19
philosophical book is to bear in mind a
00:01:24
set of opposition's or contrasts or
00:01:27
dualisms that are related today I'd like
00:01:35
to talk about them today we're going to
00:01:39
answer the question what according to
00:01:41
Kant is the supreme principle of
00:01:44
morality and in answering that question
00:01:48
in working our way up to con censor to
00:01:51
that question it will help to bear in
00:01:56
mind three contrasts or dualisms that
00:02:03
con sets out the first you remember had
00:02:08
to do with the motive according to which
00:02:15
we act and according to Kant only one
00:02:20
kind of motive is consistent with
00:02:24
morality the motive of Duty doing the
00:02:29
right thing for the right reason what
00:02:34
other kind of motives are there Kant
00:02:37
sums them up in the category of
00:02:40
inclination every time the motive for
00:02:46
what we do is to satisfy a desire or a
00:02:51
preference that we may have to pursue
00:02:54
some interest we're acting out of
00:02:57
inclination now let me pause to see if
00:03:01
in thinking about the question of the
00:03:05
motive of duty the good will see if any
00:03:07
of you has a question
00:03:09
about that notch of Kant's claim or is
00:03:13
everybody happy with this distinction
00:03:16
what do you think go ahead
00:03:19
when you make that distinction between
00:03:22
duty and inclination is there ever any
00:03:24
moral action ever I mean you could
00:03:25
always kind of probably find some
00:03:27
selfish selfish motive can't you maybe
00:03:30
very often people do have
00:03:32
self-interested motives when they act
00:03:35
Khan wouldn't dispute that but what Kant
00:03:40
is saying is that insofar as we act
00:03:47
morally that is insofar as our actions
00:03:50
have moral worth
00:03:51
what confers moral worth is precisely
00:03:56
our capacity to rise above self-interest
00:03:59
and prudence and inclination and to act
00:04:04
out of duty some years ago I read about
00:04:09
a spelling bee and there was a young man
00:04:15
who was declared the winner of the
00:04:19
spelling bee a kid named Andrew thirteen
00:04:22
years old the winning word the word that
00:04:26
he was able to spell was echolalia does
00:04:30
anyone know what echolalia is but it's
00:04:36
not some type of flower no
00:04:40
it means the tendency to repeat as an
00:04:44
echo to repeat what you've heard anyhow
00:04:48
he's he misspelled it actually but the
00:04:51
judges misheard him they thought he had
00:04:53
spelled it correctly and awarded him the
00:04:55
championship of the National Spelling
00:04:58
Bee and he went to the judges afterward
00:05:04
and said actually I misspelled it I
00:05:09
don't deserve the prize and he was
00:05:12
regarded as a moral hero and he was
00:05:14
written up in the New York Times miss
00:05:17
speller is a spelling bee here oh
00:05:23
there's Andrew with his proud mother
00:05:32
and but when he was interviewed
00:05:36
afterwards listen to this when he was
00:05:38
interviewed afterwards he said quote the
00:05:42
judges said I had a lot of integrity but
00:05:45
then he added the part of his motive was
00:05:48
quote I didn't want to feel like a slime
00:05:55
alright what would can't say go ahead I
00:06:01
guess it would depend on whether or not
00:06:03
that was a marginal reason or the
00:06:06
predominant reason in whether or not and
00:06:08
why he decided to confess that he didn't
00:06:11
actually spell the word correctly good
00:06:13
and what's your name Vasco that's very
00:06:15
interesting is there anyone else who has
00:06:20
a view about this does this show that
00:06:23
Kant's principle is too stringent too
00:06:26
demanding
00:06:27
what would can't say about this yes I
00:06:34
think that Khan actually says that it is
00:06:38
the pure motivation that comes out of
00:06:40
duty which gives the action moral growth
00:06:42
so it's like for example in this case he
00:06:45
might have more than one motive he might
00:06:47
have the motive of not feeling like a
00:06:48
slime and he might have the motive of
00:06:50
doing the right thing for in and of
00:06:53
itself out of duty and so while there's
00:06:56
more than one motivation going on there
00:06:58
does not mean that the action is devoid
00:07:00
of moral worth just because he has one
00:07:02
other motive so because the motive which
00:07:05
involves duty is what gives it new moral
00:07:07
roof good and what's your name Judith
00:07:10
well Judith I think that your account
00:07:13
actually is true to count it's fine to
00:07:16
have sentiments and feelings that
00:07:19
support doing the right thing
00:07:21
provided they don't provide the reason
00:07:25
for acting so I think Judith actually
00:07:30
has mounted a pretty good defense of
00:07:31
Kant on this question of the motive of
00:07:34
duty thank you now let's go back to the
00:07:39
three contrasts it's clear at least what
00:07:43
Kant means when he says
00:07:46
that for an action to have moral worth
00:07:49
it must be done for the sake of duty not
00:07:52
out of inclination but as we began to
00:07:55
see last time there's a connection
00:07:57
between Kant's stringent notion of
00:08:01
morality and his specially demanding
00:08:04
understanding of freedom and that leads
00:08:08
us to the second contrast the link
00:08:11
between morality and freedom
00:08:14
the second contrast describes two
00:08:17
different ways that my will can be
00:08:21
determined autonomously and
00:08:24
heteronomously according to Kant I am
00:08:28
only free when my will is determined
00:08:33
autonomously which means what according
00:08:37
to a law that I give myself we must be
00:08:41
capable if we're capable of freedom as
00:08:43
autonomy we must be capable of acting
00:08:45
according not to a law that's given or
00:08:47
imposed on us but according to a law we
00:08:49
give ourselves but where could such a
00:08:53
law come from a law that we give
00:08:57
ourselves reason if reason determines my
00:09:06
will then the will becomes the power to
00:09:13
choose independent of the dictates of
00:09:16
nature or inclination or circumstance so
00:09:21
connected with Kant's demanding notions
00:09:25
of morality and freedom is a specially
00:09:28
demanding notion of reasoning well how
00:09:33
can reason determine the will there are
00:09:37
two ways and this leads to the third
00:09:39
contrast Kant says there are two
00:09:43
different commands of reason and a
00:09:46
command of reason Kant calls an
00:09:49
imperative an imperative is simply an
00:09:52
ought one kind of imperative perhaps the
00:09:56
most familiar kind is a hypothetical
00:09:58
impaired
00:09:59
relative hypothetical imperatives use
00:10:05
instrumental reason if you want X then
00:10:13
do why it's means-ends reasoning if you
00:10:18
want a good business reputation then
00:10:23
don't shortchange your customers word
00:10:26
make it out that's a hypothetical
00:10:29
imperative if the action would be good
00:10:33
solely as a means to something else Kant
00:10:35
writes the imperative is hypothetical if
00:10:38
the action is represented as good in
00:10:40
itself and therefore it's necessary for
00:10:44
a will which of itself accords with
00:10:47
reason then the imperative is
00:10:51
categorical that's the difference
00:10:55
between a categorical imperative and a
00:10:58
hypothetical one a categorical
00:11:01
imperative commands categorically which
00:11:05
just means without reference to or
00:11:07
dependence on any further purpose and so
00:11:12
you see the connection among these three
00:11:17
parallel contrasts to be free in the
00:11:21
sense of autonomous requires that I act
00:11:25
not out of a hypothetical imperative but
00:11:30
out of a categorical imperative and so
00:11:34
you see by these three contrast Kant
00:11:36
reasons his way brings us up to his
00:11:41
derivation of the categorical imperative
00:11:45
well this leaves us one big question
00:11:49
what is the categorical imperative what
00:11:52
is the supreme principle of morality
00:11:54
what is it command of us can't gives
00:12:00
three versions three formulations of the
00:12:03
categorical imperative I want to mention
00:12:06
two and then see what you think of them
00:12:10
the first
00:12:12
version the first formula he calls the
00:12:15
formula of the universal law Act only on
00:12:20
that Maxim whereby you can at the same
00:12:23
time will that it should become a
00:12:26
universal law and by maksim what is
00:12:29
can't mean he means a rule that explains
00:12:34
the reason for what you're doing a
00:12:37
principle for example promise keeping
00:12:41
suppose I need money I need a hundred
00:12:44
dollars desperately and I know I can't
00:12:51
pay it back anytime soon I come to you
00:12:56
and make you a promise of false promise
00:12:58
one I know I can't keep please give me a
00:13:01
hundred dollars today
00:13:02
lend me the money I will repay you next
00:13:04
week is that consistent with the
00:13:10
categorical imperative that false
00:13:11
promise Kant says no in the test the way
00:13:16
we can determine that the false promise
00:13:20
is at odds with the categorical
00:13:22
imperative is try to universalize it
00:13:26
universalize the maxim upon which you're
00:13:28
about to act if everybody made false
00:13:32
promises when they needed money then
00:13:36
nobody would believe those promises
00:13:39
there would be no such thing as a
00:13:42
promise and so there would be a
00:13:45
contradiction the maxim universalized
00:13:48
would undermine itself that's the test
00:13:55
that's how we can know that the false
00:13:58
promise is wrong well what about the
00:14:05
formula of the universal law you find it
00:14:08
persuasive
00:14:14
what do you think go ahead I have a
00:14:18
question about the difference between
00:14:20
categorical ISM and a hypothesis that if
00:14:25
you're going to match between
00:14:27
categorical and hypothetical medical
00:14:29
yeah imperatives right if you're going
00:14:32
to act with a categorical imperative so
00:14:36
that the maxim doesn't undermined itself
00:14:38
it sounds like I am going to do X
00:14:41
because I want Y I am going to not lie
00:14:46
in dire need because I want the world to
00:14:50
function in such a way that promises are
00:14:52
kept I don't want to liquidate the
00:14:54
practice of promises right it sounds
00:14:58
like justifying a means by an ends it
00:15:02
seems like an instance of
00:15:04
consequentialist reasoning you're sane
00:15:06
and what's your name Tim Tim well Tim
00:15:14
John Stuart Mill agreed with you he made
00:15:17
this he made this criticism of Cod he
00:15:22
said if i universalize the maxim and
00:15:26
find that the whole practice of promise
00:15:28
keeping would be destroyed if
00:15:30
universalized i must be appealing
00:15:34
somehow to consequences right if that's
00:15:38
the reason not to tell a false promise
00:15:42
so John Stuart Mill agreed with that
00:15:45
criticism against count but John Stuart
00:15:48
Mill was wrong
00:15:51
you're in good company though you're in
00:15:55
good company Tim Conte has often read as
00:15:58
Tim just read him as appealing to
00:16:04
consequences the world would be worse
00:16:07
off if everybody lied because then no
00:16:11
one could rely on anybody else's word
00:16:13
therefore you shouldn't lie that's not
00:16:18
what is saying exactly although
00:16:20
it's easy to interpret him as saying
00:16:23
that I think what he's saying is that
00:16:27
this is the test this is the test of
00:16:31
whether the maxim corresponds with the
00:16:35
categorical imperative it isn't exactly
00:16:37
the reason it's not the reason the
00:16:42
reason you should universalize to test
00:16:44
your maxim is to see whether you are
00:16:50
privileged Nguni dan desires over
00:16:57
everybody else's it's a way of pointing
00:17:00
to this feature this demand of the
00:17:02
categorical imperative that the reasons
00:17:06
for your action shouldn't depend for
00:17:09
their justification on your interests
00:17:12
your needs your special circumstances
00:17:15
being more important than somebody
00:17:18
else's that I think is the moral
00:17:21
intuition lying behind the
00:17:22
universalization test so let me spell
00:17:26
out the second Kant's second version of
00:17:29
the categorical imperative perhaps in a
00:17:33
way that's more intuitively accessible
00:17:35
than the formula of universal law it's
00:17:40
the formula of humanity as an end
00:17:45
konna introduces the second version of
00:17:49
the categorical imperative with the
00:17:52
following line of argument we can't base
00:17:56
the categorical imperative on any
00:17:58
particular interest purposes or ends
00:18:01
because then it would be only relative
00:18:04
to the person
00:18:05
whose ends they were but suppose there
00:18:08
was something whose existence has in
00:18:12
itself an absolute value and end in
00:18:15
itself then in it and in it alone would
00:18:21
there be the ground of a possible
00:18:23
categorical imperative well what is
00:18:27
there that we can think of as having its
00:18:31
end in itself Kant's answer is this I
00:18:36
say that man and in general every
00:18:40
rational being exists as an end in
00:18:43
himself not merely as a means for
00:18:46
arbitrary use by this or that will and
00:18:50
here Kahn distinguishes between persons
00:18:53
on the one hand and things on the other
00:18:57
rational beings are persons they don't
00:19:01
just have a relative value for us but if
00:19:05
anything has they have an absolute value
00:19:07
an intrinsic value that is rational
00:19:11
beings have dignity they're worthy of
00:19:14
reverence and respect this line of
00:19:17
reasoning leads Kant to the second
00:19:20
formulation of the categorical
00:19:21
imperative which is this act in such a
00:19:25
way that you always treat humanity
00:19:28
whether in your own person or in the
00:19:31
person of any other never simply as a
00:19:35
means but always at the same time as an
00:19:40
end so that's the formula of humanity as
00:19:44
an end the idea that human beings as
00:19:49
rational beings are ends in themselves
00:19:52
not open to use merely as a means when I
00:19:59
make a false promise to you I'm using
00:20:03
you as a means to my ends to my desire
00:20:09
for the hundred dollars and so I'm
00:20:12
failing to respect you I'm failing to
00:20:16
respect your dignity
00:20:18
I'm manipulating you now consider the
00:20:22
example of the duty against suicide
00:20:28
murder and suicide are at odds with the
00:20:33
categorical imperative why if I murder
00:20:38
someone I'm taking their life for some
00:20:42
purpose either because I'm hired killer
00:20:47
or I'm in the throes of some great anger
00:20:50
or passion well I have some interest
00:20:53
some purpose that's particular for the
00:20:56
sake which I'm using them as a means
00:20:59
murder violates the categorical
00:21:03
imperative for Kant morally speaking
00:21:08
suicide is on a par with murder it's on
00:21:11
a par with murder because what we
00:21:13
violate when we take a life when we take
00:21:18
someone's life ours or somebody else's
00:21:21
we use that person we use a rational
00:21:25
being we use humanity as a means and so
00:21:30
we fail to respect humanity as an end
00:21:33
and that capacity for reason that
00:21:36
humanity the commands respect that is
00:21:41
the ground of dignity that humanity that
00:21:45
capacity for reason resides
00:21:49
undifferentiated in all of us and so I
00:21:52
violate that dignity in my own person if
00:21:56
I commit suicide and in murder if I take
00:22:00
somebody else's life from a moral point
00:22:02
of view they're the same and the reason
00:22:06
they are the same has to do with the
00:22:09
universal character and ground of the
00:22:13
moral law the reason that we have to
00:22:17
respect the dignity of other people has
00:22:21
not to do with anything in particular
00:22:24
about them and so respect contine
00:22:28
respectives unlike love in this
00:22:30
way it's unlike sympathy it's unlike
00:22:35
solidarity or fellow feeling or altruism
00:22:39
because love and those other particular
00:22:42
virtues or reasons for caring about
00:22:44
other people have to do with who they
00:22:46
are in particular but respect for can't
00:22:50
respect is respect for Humanity which is
00:22:55
universal for a rational capacity which
00:22:57
is universal and that's why violating it
00:23:01
in my own case is as objectionable it's
00:23:05
violating it in the case of any other
00:23:07
questions or objections go ahead
00:23:16
I guess I'm somewhat worried about
00:23:21
Kant's statement that you cannot use a
00:23:26
person as a means because every person
00:23:28
is an end in and of themselves because
00:23:31
it seems that that every day in order to
00:23:34
get something accomplished for that day
00:23:36
I must use myself as a means to some end
00:23:39
and I must use the people around me as a
00:23:42
means to some end as well for instance
00:23:45
suppose that I want to do well in a
00:23:49
class and I have to write a paper I have
00:23:52
to use myself as a means to write the
00:23:53
paper suppose I want to buy something
00:23:57
food I must go to the store and use the
00:24:00
person working behind the counter as a
00:24:02
means for me to purchase my food right
00:24:05
that's true you do what's your name
00:24:08
Patrick Patrick you're not doing
00:24:10
anything wrong you're not violating the
00:24:14
categorical imperative when you use
00:24:16
other people as means that's not
00:24:18
objectionable provided when we deal with
00:24:24
other people for the sake of advancing
00:24:25
our projects and purposes and interests
00:24:28
which we all do provided we treat them
00:24:33
in a way that is consistent with respect
00:24:37
for their dignity and what it means to
00:24:42
respect them
00:24:43
is given by the categorical imperative
00:24:51
are you persuaded do you think that Kant
00:24:55
has given a compelling account a
00:25:00
persuasive account of the supreme
00:25:02
principle of morality reread the
00:25:09
groundwork and will try to answer that
00:25:12
question next time
