This episode clarified many questions that I had about Kant. The shopkeeper example explained how to determine what has moral worth and what lacks it. "Do the right thing for the right reason" makes sense and the three dualisms that were covered in the lecture hit on the major points of Kant's view. I agree with a lot of his points such as how we are different from animals. We can distinguish ourselves because we are rational beings. I believe that most of the time people have incentives for acting the way that they do. I agree that people should not just be used as a means to an ends. Every person deserves respect and to be treated a certain way. Each person should be looked at as an ends in themselves. I think that the motive of duty is what makes an action moral and motives of inclination are not considered moral. Most of the time I think that people act out of motives of inclination.
While I completely agree withe Sandel when he says Kant is a "difficult thinker," Sandel's lecture presented him in a way that made me fully understand what Kant's philosophy means. I agree with Kant when he says that any action can't be considered a moral one unless the duty behind it is one of good worth. The shopkeeper example was one that happens to everyone on a daily basis: making a decision. While the shopkeeper's decision was made based on unworthy motives, this example has definitely opened my eyes to making my own decisions based on what is "right for the right reasons." I also agreed with Sandel when he said that Kant believed that all humans have dignity that deserved individual respect, which is a quite different approach from what we'd discussed in the previous lectures on utilitarianism. Kant's ideas on freedom (autonomy or heteronomy) are also interesting, providing that the desires outside of our control and the desires we make for ourselves lie in two different realms of decision-making.
After watching this episode I definitely feel that I better understand Kants moral philosophy, and I can say that I agree with it more that utilitarianism. I think the way Kant determines what is moral or not moral is a successful way of thinking about it. The motive must be to achieve a duty and not be of self interest. I also agree with the way he separates humans from animals, and gives humans rights that cannot be morally taken away. I think Kant does a very good job af describing a way to determine if something is moral or not. Using a person only as a means is immoral, and the person should be an ends in themselves.
After watching the video, I have mixed views about Kant. I think I mostly agree with his ethical model, and I strongly agree with many principles of his philosophy. I absolutely agree that a person should be used as an end rather than merely a means to an end. I agree with most of the ethical principles proposed in this video, and I think Kant's system makes more sense in many ways than utilitarianism. I do, though, think that he places to big of an emphasis on universal laws. Although they seem to make sense in most cases, I don't think any universal law can describe morality in every possible situation. There are always exceptions to the rule. The problem with this is that universal laws are so important to Kant's ethical theory that adding exceptions undermines his whole philosophy. If there were a way to add exceptions to his proposed laws without abandoning other aspects of his philosophy, it would be much more applicable to real-world situations. I also don't think that Kant's complete rejection of utilitarianism is justified. Although making a decision based on pain and pleasure doesn't describe all situations either, making decisions on this philosophy will usually bring about the same results as acting under Kant's philosophy. Kant's universal moral laws tend to agree with the decision that brings the most pleasure into the world, and personally I think an ethical philosophy that acts as a compromise between the two viewpoints would work quite nicely.
Like Chelsea, I feel that Sandel makes learning about Kant a much easier and more interesting feat. Kant's philosophy may be difficult to fully understand or even decipher given the language in which he wrote some of his formulations, but Sandel does a great job of giving examples (such as the storekeeper and the change) and including some humor to make the philosophy and ethical issues at hand more interesting. I truly enjoy watching these videos (even though they take more time than other blogs) because I feel as though they really put some of the ideas and concepts that I have read about in the book into a scenario or perspective that makes it relatable to everyday modern life. I believe that Kant's ethical system is better than Bentham's utilitarianism because it accounts for each individuals fundamental rights and almost puts moral worth into rules or guidelines making it easier to measure and understand. The philosophy behind utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", does not account for each individual's rights as a person and doesn't have a definite rule or guideline to follow in any given situation. It is hard to measure the "greatest good" and any measurement or calculation has a great degree of uncertainty. While Kant's philosophy has a few weaknesses, I think that he is on the right track. Motive is an important thing to consider when assessing moral worth to any given action. I thought that the story of the kid in the spelling be was interesting as well. The biggest weakness that I can see in Kant's system is the absoluteness of the Perfect Duties. The duty involving an abstinence from murder, I believe is important and a good duty to have towards oneself and others. However, I think that there are instances in which people must lie or even break a promise in order to carry out a duty of beneficence (references used from book) Overall though, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching these videos and have really gained a lot from watching them. I even think that since learning about Kant, some of my own ethical principles have changed or have been reassessed.
This episode clarified many questions that I had about Kant. The shopkeeper example explained how to determine what has moral worth and what lacks it. "Do the right thing for the right reason" makes sense and the three dualisms that were covered in the lecture hit on the major points of Kant's view. I agree with a lot of his points such as how we are different from animals. We can distinguish ourselves because we are rational beings. I believe that most of the time people have incentives for acting the way that they do. I agree that people should not just be used as a means to an ends. Every person deserves respect and to be treated a certain way. Each person should be looked at as an ends in themselves. I think that the motive of duty is what makes an action moral and motives of inclination are not considered moral. Most of the time I think that people act out of motives of inclination.
ReplyDeleteWhile I completely agree withe Sandel when he says Kant is a "difficult thinker," Sandel's lecture presented him in a way that made me fully understand what Kant's philosophy means. I agree with Kant when he says that any action can't be considered a moral one unless the duty behind it is one of good worth. The shopkeeper example was one that happens to everyone on a daily basis: making a decision. While the shopkeeper's decision was made based on unworthy motives, this example has definitely opened my eyes to making my own decisions based on what is "right for the right reasons." I also agreed with Sandel when he said that Kant believed that all humans have dignity that deserved individual respect, which is a quite different approach from what we'd discussed in the previous lectures on utilitarianism. Kant's ideas on freedom (autonomy or heteronomy) are also interesting, providing that the desires outside of our control and the desires we make for ourselves lie in two different realms of decision-making.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching this episode I definitely feel that I better understand Kants moral philosophy, and I can say that I agree with it more that utilitarianism. I think the way Kant determines what is moral or not moral is a successful way of thinking about it. The motive must be to achieve a duty and not be of self interest. I also agree with the way he separates humans from animals, and gives humans rights that cannot be morally taken away. I think Kant does a very good job af describing a way to determine if something is moral or not. Using a person only as a means is immoral, and the person should be an ends in themselves.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video, I have mixed views about Kant. I think I mostly agree with his ethical model, and I strongly agree with many principles of his philosophy. I absolutely agree that a person should be used as an end rather than merely a means to an end. I agree with most of the ethical principles proposed in this video, and I think Kant's system makes more sense in many ways than utilitarianism. I do, though, think that he places to big of an emphasis on universal laws. Although they seem to make sense in most cases, I don't think any universal law can describe morality in every possible situation. There are always exceptions to the rule. The problem with this is that universal laws are so important to Kant's ethical theory that adding exceptions undermines his whole philosophy. If there were a way to add exceptions to his proposed laws without abandoning other aspects of his philosophy, it would be much more applicable to real-world situations.
ReplyDeleteI also don't think that Kant's complete rejection of utilitarianism is justified. Although making a decision based on pain and pleasure doesn't describe all situations either, making decisions on this philosophy will usually bring about the same results as acting under Kant's philosophy. Kant's universal moral laws tend to agree with the decision that brings the most pleasure into the world, and personally I think an ethical philosophy that acts as a compromise between the two viewpoints would work quite nicely.
Like Chelsea, I feel that Sandel makes learning about Kant a much easier and more interesting feat. Kant's philosophy may be difficult to fully understand or even decipher given the language in which he wrote some of his formulations, but Sandel does a great job of giving examples (such as the storekeeper and the change) and including some humor to make the philosophy and ethical issues at hand more interesting. I truly enjoy watching these videos (even though they take more time than other blogs) because I feel as though they really put some of the ideas and concepts that I have read about in the book into a scenario or perspective that makes it relatable to everyday modern life. I believe that Kant's ethical system is better than Bentham's utilitarianism because it accounts for each individuals fundamental rights and almost puts moral worth into rules or guidelines making it easier to measure and understand. The philosophy behind utilitarianism, "the greatest good for the greatest number", does not account for each individual's rights as a person and doesn't have a definite rule or guideline to follow in any given situation. It is hard to measure the "greatest good" and any measurement or calculation has a great degree of uncertainty. While Kant's philosophy has a few weaknesses, I think that he is on the right track. Motive is an important thing to consider when assessing moral worth to any given action. I thought that the story of the kid in the spelling be was interesting as well. The biggest weakness that I can see in Kant's system is the absoluteness of the Perfect Duties. The duty involving an abstinence from murder, I believe is important and a good duty to have towards oneself and others. However, I think that there are instances in which people must lie or even break a promise in order to carry out a duty of beneficence (references used from book) Overall though, I have thoroughly enjoyed watching these videos and have really gained a lot from watching them. I even think that since learning about Kant, some of my own ethical principles have changed or have been reassessed.
ReplyDeleteFriendly and quick. For a person who hated going to the dentist I am not dreading my next cleaning!
ReplyDeletepainless root canal treatment in madipakkam