Beginner's Guide to Kant's Moral Philosophy

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant Moral Theory is not Deontological:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2fvTvtzBM
Here are the rough transcripts

.....................
"Quote"
The first thing you need to know about Kant moral philosophy is that he's not trying to convince you that morality exists [as an independent fact].
If you're one of those people who goes oh morality is just an illusion and it doesn't really exist well then you're probably still going to think that when you're done reading Kant.

What Kant is doing is saying ‘come on lads we all know that people behave in a way that they call moral at least some of the time’.
Morality it's a thing we do it and we talk about it.
So what's the best way to try and understand it.

He starts by asking what does it mean to be good.
He says that the only thing that is good without qualification is the good Will.
The Will to do the right thing.
Everything else money courage intelligence good looks those things can be used for good or evil.
But the Will to do good is always good.
It's not good because of what you can get out of it your rewards for being good again you could use them for good or ill.
The good Will must be good-in-itself.

We don't always act according to the good Will we are imperfect and sometimes we act according to our other desires.
But acting from the good Will Kant says is the only way to really be moral.

Consider a bartender who gets a new customer in their bar.
The bartender could give the customer the wrong change and save a bit of money but he decides not to he gives the customer the correct change.
Kant asks why did he do that if he did it because he was afraid of getting caught or because he wanted repeat business or even just because it makes him happy.
Well then that's not a genuinely good action because it wasn't motivated by the good will.
It was motivated by the desire to get something else.

For Kant it's not the consequences of your actions that matter so much is that you do them for the right reasons.
The only genuinely good actions are the ones that you do purely out of a respect for the moral rules.
Whatever those moral rules are, I will come to them shortly
Crucially doing what somebody else tells you to do can't be good because whether it's God your parents or whoever if you're just following orders you're not acting from the good Will.
You're acting in anticipation of some reward all punishment.
The good Will has to come from you.
That's why moral reasons are so powerful and have such a hold on you.
It's because they actually come from you.
Morality is a system of rules that you place on yourself.
Respect for the rules always comes as a result of being a member of something so I respect the rules of youtube because I'm a youtuber I respect the rules of my country because I'm a citizen.
Kant thought that moral rules come to us as a result of being rational beings.
As a result of having a mind.
Rational here just means being able to listen to reasons.
Kant thought that part of being able to do that is that there are some reasons that we cannot ignore and that apply to everyone okay.

This might all seem a little bit overwhelming.
So let me try and give you a peek behind the curtain here what Kant is trying to do is ground morality in logic.
He's trying to say that being bad actually does not make sense.
Try as you might you cannot escape the laws of logic.
Kant is trying to make morality as inescapable as logic by saying that ultimately it comes from the same place.
The built-in restrictions on the ways that it makes sense for people to think.

contd - next post

[Veritas Aequitas]

This leads us to the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative just means the thing that you have to do all the time regardless of circumstance.
It's an imperative an order which applies categorically.

• I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also Will that my maxim should become a universal law.

Now this is often misunderstood so stick with me.
Kant is not saying that you should only do something if it would be good for everyone to do.
That's not what he's saying
If everybody stole stuff all the time yeah the world would be a pretty rotten place to live.
But that's not why can't thinks you shouldn't steal he says that you should only act if it makes sense for you to Will everybody to act in the same way.

Take lying for instance sometimes you might want to tell a lie.
Kant asks you to consider whether it makes sense to Will that everybody lies whenever they want to.
In a world where everybody lies the whole concept of truth and lies would break down.
Nobody would trust each other.
In such a world you would not want to lie because it wouldn't get you any advantage.
There'd be no point if everyone was doing it.
Remember the moral law has to come from you from your Will.
So if you Will to tell lies you have in fact contradicted yourself just as surely as if you broke the laws of logic.
Your Will must be consistent that's what the categorical imperative really says.
It's like thy Will shall make sense.
You just gotta ask yourself does it make sense for me to Will everybody to do what I want to do.
Kant try to explain the categorical imperative in a number of different ways.
Which is why he gives not just one but three different formulations of it.
He thought that moral rules were universal.
Just as you are capable of listening to moral reasons so am i and so is everybody else.

This leads us to the second formulation.

• Act in such a way that you treat humanity whether in your own person or the person of another always as an end and never simply as a means.

This calls us to respect other people's status as beings of moral worth as well as to respect ourselves and cleave to our own inner moral voices.
This formulation does prompt some interesting questions.
For instance when I go to the bar am I not treating the barman as a means not an end.
I'm only talking to him because of what I can get out of him right same is true of doctors taxi drivers most people really.
Yes that's true but it's not really a problem for Kant so long as we remember that those barman and taxi drivers and so on have their own ends and it's not okay for us to step on them.
Like I wouldn't enslave that barman and force him to serve me drinks that really would violate the categorical imperative.
But as long as he is producing the service voluntarily then that's okay for me to consume the product of it.
Now if you've seen my series on Karl Marx you might be saying well hang on a minute Ollie, do people really produce goods voluntarily under global capitalism and yeah okay that's a discussion we could have but that's how it's supposed to work, for ‘cat’ anyway.

The final formulation reminds us of the responsibility of being a moral being.

• Act as though through your Maxim's you could become a legislator of universal laws.

Here Kant asks us to remember that we are always in a sense setting an example to other people in what we do
We contribute to what is normal human behavior and
We have a choice to make about whether to make that normal behavior good or not.
He also reminds us that the moral law has to come from us.
We place it on ourselves and sometimes we might have to do that against what our other desires are of course.
If you're very clever you'll have noticed that Kant moral philosophy really depends on free Will.
If you can't freely place the moral law on yourself then this whole project isn't going to fly.
That's something that didn't escape his notice either and it was central to his work on free Will which is another story for another time so.
That's Kant moral philosophy.
If you're ever lost just remember that the moral law has to come from within you.

Its chief commandment is thy Will shall makes sense.
"Unquote"

[FlashDangerpants]

YT links are case-sensitive and shouldn't be edited in MS Word

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQ2fvTvtzBM

Obviously Kant's moral theory is of the rule following variety AKA deontological.
And the video comes with this description:

A simple introduction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and his deontological approach to ethics

[Veritas Aequitas]

In the OP I stated Kant's Morality & Ethics is not deontological.
In this case, deontological as it is commonly understood at present by the majority which is taken to meant strict compliance with rules like those from God.

There are a wide range of meaning from the history of the term 'deontology'.

The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[8] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement).[9][10] The more general sense of the word is retained in French, especially in the term code de déontologie (ethical code), in the context of professional ethics.

Depending on the system of deontological ethics under consideration, a moral obligation may arise from an external or internal source, such as a set of rules inherent to the universe (ethical naturalism), religious law, or a set of personal or cultural values (any of which may be in conflict with personal desires).
WIKI

When Kant's Morality is taken to be deontological, it is deemed to be in the narrowest sense, i.e. strict compliance in actions, i.e.
If there is a murderer at the door asking whether the targeted-victim is in the house, the moral agent must tell the truth and not lie to save the targeted-victim who is actually known to be in the house.
This view of Kant as deontological made Kant very stupid. That was not Kant's intended meaning.
To avoid this, I would prefer to avoid associating 'deontology' with Kant's Morality.

Kant isn't a deontologist NOT because he isn't consistent with the categorical imperative (that's silly) but because deontology is a hopelessly confused term that we should probably abandon.
It really only serves to box all sorts of very different non-consequentialist views together in an unhelpful way and as a crutch for teaching undergraduates ('there are three main approaches to normative ethics...')
Jens Timmerman argues that the term should be abandoned and that, on a reasonable construal of it, it doesn't really apply to Kant in his 'What's wrong with deontology?' Before him, Barbara Herman has also advocated a non-deontological reading of Kant in 'Leaving deontology behind.'

It's worth noting that these views aren't as radical as they may sound. A lot depends on what you understand by 'deontology'. Herman and Timmermann's Kant is the same Kant you know and love - they're just arguing that boxing him in as a deontologist serves to obscure important parts of his ethical theory, like his focus on the good (and not just the right.)
https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/ ... ctually_a/

Actually, Kant full spectrum of Morality & Ethics cover both rules, consequences and reasons for both.
So Kant's morality is not strictly deontological like those of Abrahamic-theistic morality.

[FlashDangerpants]

Obviously Kant's moral theory is of the rule following variety AKA deontological.
And the video comes with this description:

A simple introduction to Kant’s Categorical Imperative and his deontological approach to ethics

[Ansiktsburk]

What would make his moral Philosophy deontological or not?

For me, not a master in Deontology, there should be a good portion of just follow the book of instructions to make antyhing strictly deontological(from my wikipedish knowledge of it). I this video, as it is presented there seem to be something a little deeper supposed to be going on in the subject’s brain.

[FlashDangerpants]

What would make his moral Philosophy deontological or not?

Duties. The deon in deontology is Greek for duty, any moral theory that is centred on duties (imperatives, rules) is inherently deontological.

Things change depending on what you are investigating. If you are placing Kant into the wider history of philosophy and his theories are being contrasted with alternatives such as the utilitarians, then you would definitely say he falls into the deontological category unless you are mad.

If you are doing a deep deep dive into any specific philosopher to the exclusion of all other considerations, then you always find reason not to apply such a broad brush term. You would say that Kant is largely deontological but has X or Y other concern. Similarly Mill isn't a proper Utilitarian because he has concerns that go beyond pleasure and pain. None of them is ever exactly the borad brush term if you look deep enough.

But VA only does this routine because he insists on being a super special expert in Kant. It's all he's got. He doesn't have the wit or talent to show what the actual flaws are in the arguments of real philosophers such as Simon Blackburn or Richard Rorty, so he looks up where they have referenced Kant, and then he says they must be bad philosophers because they suggested Kant is a deontologist and in VA's imagination that can never be allowed.

but Kan'ts work is deontological in the whole because it really is about duties and imperatives. and VA is a talentless fool who thinks he stumbled on that one simple trick that philosophers hate.

[Ansiktsburk]

What would make his moral Philosophy deontological or not?

Duties. The deon in deontology is Greek for duty, any moral theory that is centred on duties (imperatives, rules) is inherently deontological.

Things change depending on what you are investigating. If you are placing Kant into the wider history of philosophy and his theories are being contrasted with alternatives such as the utilitarians, then you would definitely say he falls into the deontological category unless you are mad.

If you are doing a deep deep dive into any specific philosopher to the exclusion of all other considerations, then you always find reason not to apply such a broad brush term. You would say that Kant is largely deontological but has X or Y other concern. Similarly Mill isn't a proper Utilitarian because he has concerns that go beyond pleasure and pain. None of them is ever exactly the borad brush term if you look deep enough.

But VA only does this routine because he insists on being a super special expert in Kant. It's all he's got. He doesn't have the wit or talent to show what the actual flaws are in the arguments of real philosophers such as Simon Blackburn or Richard Rorty, so he looks up where they have referenced Kant, and then he says they must be bad philosophers because they suggested Kant is a deontologist and in VA's imagination that can never be allowed.

but Kan'ts work is deontological in the whole because it really is about duties and imperatives. and VA is a talentless fool who thinks he stumbled on that one simple trick that philosophers hate.

Now, this thing he says, do this or that if you consider it a way in which all should do it as his imperative is kinda presented in the video (and on a dozen other places I’ve come across after taking an interest in Philosophy), that seem pretty interesting in terms of ”duty”. A duty, to me, is a something you should do or don’t do. A law in a country is like you should not steal (and if you steal this or that much money in this or that matter you get punished accordingly). And the duty of the citizen is to observe this law.

My knowledge of utilitarianism is as wikipedish as my Kant moral knowledge. But roughly, as I understand it you should try to figure out the consequences of whatever and act accordingly “maximizing happiness “, whatever that means. Now, if one get into whatever situation and ponders on what to do next… say you’re in a hurry and you reach a pedestrian crossing with a sign of a red man standing ( “Röd Gubbe” in my uncouth scandinavian mother language) you could argue that the Kantian would go “i should be waiting even if I miss the train, even if that will create havoc at home and no car is in sight”. But do you really want to make that a rule for all? And will the utilitarian go “f*ck that red light, the consequences will be better if I go walking anyways” might see some kids waiting patiently at the other side and think twice anyways.

But well the Kantian sure seems to be the guy that will wait because you should wait.

Something like that?

[FlashDangerpants]

What would make his moral Philosophy deontological or not?

Duties. The deon in deontology is Greek for duty, any moral theory that is centred on duties (imperatives, rules) is inherently deontological.

Things change depending on what you are investigating. If you are placing Kant into the wider history of philosophy and his theories are being contrasted with alternatives such as the utilitarians, then you would definitely say he falls into the deontological category unless you are mad.

If you are doing a deep deep dive into any specific philosopher to the exclusion of all other considerations, then you always find reason not to apply such a broad brush term. You would say that Kant is largely deontological but has X or Y other concern. Similarly Mill isn't a proper Utilitarian because he has concerns that go beyond pleasure and pain. None of them is ever exactly the borad brush term if you look deep enough.

But VA only does this routine because he insists on being a super special expert in Kant. It's all he's got. He doesn't have the wit or talent to show what the actual flaws are in the arguments of real philosophers such as Simon Blackburn or Richard Rorty, so he looks up where they have referenced Kant, and then he says they must be bad philosophers because they suggested Kant is a deontologist and in VA's imagination that can never be allowed.

but Kan'ts work is deontological in the whole because it really is about duties and imperatives. and VA is a talentless fool who thinks he stumbled on that one simple trick that philosophers hate.

Now, this thing he says, do this or that if you consider it a way in which all should do it as his imperative is kinda presented in the video (and on a dozen other places I’ve come across after taking an interest in Philosophy), that seem pretty interesting in terms of ”duty”. A duty, to me, is a something you should do or don’t do. A law in a country is like you should not steal (and if you steal this or that much money in this or that matter you get punished accordingly). And the duty of the citizen is to observe this law.

That seems about right. Imperatives, duties, rules and so on are a sort of command. So a lot of people (see Immanuel Can on this site for instance) think something along the lines of: correct moral rules are the commands that God gives and our duty is to obey them (divine command theory). Kant's theory is of a similar type in that it rotates around these commands, but in his case it is to do with giving yourself a command, and to get the right command to issue to yourself, you must use correct reasoning, and if everyone does that, we will all want the same thing, and will all give ourselves compatible orders, such that anybody in the same situation as you would choose the same moral action as you do.

My knowledge of utilitarianism is as wikipedish as my Kant moral knowledge. But roughly, as I understand it you should try to figure out the consequences of whatever and act accordingly “maximizing happiness “, whatever that means. Now, if one get into whatever situation and ponders on what to do next… say you’re in a hurry and you reach a pedestrian crossing with a sign of a red man standing ( “Röd Gubbe” in my uncouth scandinavian mother language) you could argue that the Kantian would go “i should be waiting even if I miss the train, even if that will create havoc at home and no car is in sight”. But do you really want to make that a rule for all? And will the utilitarian go “f*ck that red light, the consequences will be better if I go walking anyways” might see some kids waiting patiently at the other side and think twice anyways.

Do you guys do the same thing the Germans do where you strictly obey the do not cross sign even when there's no traffic? That confuses us English, we prefer to just get run over every now and then.

There is some sort of legalistic deontological theory that would say never to break the law and to obey all expected traditions, but a good Kantian would need to justify whether he ought to obey that sign, especially if missing the train risks breaking a promise to be somewhere. There's nothing that prevents a Kantian from robbing a bank if he thinks it is the rule that everybody should follow if they acted in accord with reason and were subject to the same situation as himself.

Utilitarianism is a bit silly to be honest. In its rawest and most honest form, it really does require a mathematical approach to maximising good feels and minimising bad feels and nothing else. Various extended remixes have tried to account for what sort of good feels should be promoted, or how equitably the good feels should be distributed and so on. CIN would be your man to cover that ground, I am liable to be unfair.

But well the Kantian sure seems to be the guy that will wait because you should wait.

Something like that?

Pretty much on the nose to be honest. The slight fly in the opintment is that it is so obvious both that morality has to be about rules and that morality has to be about outcomes too that any theory which completely relies on one to the exclusion of the other looks batshit crazy from the start. So the deontologist has to smugle in some attention to consequences, and the consequentialist has to add some sort of rules otehrwise they just look like idiots.

But the truth is they both undermine their own case to pull off these stunts.

[Veritas Aequitas]

What would make his moral Philosophy deontological or not?

For me, not a master in Deontology, there should be a good portion of just follow the book of instructions to make antyhing strictly deontological(from my wikipedish knowledge of it). I this video, as it is presented there seem to be something a little deeper supposed to be going on in the subject’s brain.

The video given a brief idea of what is Kantian Moral Philosophy, especially with emphasis on three formulations of the Categorical Imperatives [CI].
There are actually 5 CIs.

The video associated Kant's moral philosophy as 'deontological'
However, there is a need to highlight Kant's Morality & Ethics is not fully deontological.
viewtopic.php?t=42249&sid=3b3b8b51bd844 ... 34fed6e2c5
There are many philosophers who argued Kant's moral philosophy is not deontological since the term can be very misleading.

Take the case of Kant's example of the 'murderer at the door'.
If say, your relative X is hiding in your house running away from a murderer; the murder asked, is X in your house?
When Kant's moral philosophy is deemed to be deontological and if you are Kantian, then you cannot lie to the murder at all, but must instead tell the truth, thus leading to X's possible death.
Many has mocked Kant on this for being so stupid, irrational and unwise.

But the above misinterpretation was not Kant's intentions.
Kant never recognized his moral philosophical as 'deontological', which is a term coined long after Kant introduced his moral philosophy. Here is the history of the term 'deontology'.

The term deontological was first used to describe the current, specialised definition by C. D. Broad in his 1930 book, Five Types of Ethical Theory.[8] Older usage of the term goes back to Jeremy Bentham, who coined it prior to 1816 as a synonym of dicastic or censorial ethics (i.e., ethics based on judgement).[9][10]
-WIKI

The term it too confusing thus many has called for it to be abandoned within moral philosophy.

Re the concept of 'Duty' [3] it as hierarchical from maxim [2] with categorical imperatives[1] at the top.
'Duty' is divided into Perfect Duties [no leeways] vs Imperfect Duties [with leeways]