224: Kant IV: Get them endsssss

Hello and welcome to classical stuff. You should know a podcast about philosophy and literature and the great ideas and whatever We want to talk about my name is Tom's Maggie. I'm joined as always by mr Hey, hey, mr Hey, mr Graham Donaldson hello in today's episode AJ you are bringing us part three on a manual cons yep I thought I could get all of chapter two into one episode last time But I did not anticipate us arguing for 35 minutes of the episode you listen to this podcast before that That's gotta be half of our episode. I mean it's a pretty solid bit chunk of time right as yeah, you're not wrong But arguing we were around there was a little I think there was a lot of it was a good time But we didn't get all the way through the chapter my hope is to get all the way through the chapter this time Maybe have only one more episode on con if that last chapter is interesting if it's not on something else But this the rest of chapter two is pretty good and I think it'll you know raise Graham's hackles a little bit That's my anticipation keep my hackles very low.

I do not think that first two episodes are any indication I actually there's a lot of this really interesting to me And so I think I don't know maybe by the end of it You'll be convinced that con to the genius and he's got his finger on the pulse of morality But I somehow doubt it I've been tending to my hackles. I think I am I think this one tend one's hackles well thing is I've been thinking a lot about your episodes in between the months between Lots of good. We've been getting lots of good feedback from people who sent us emails Just a little like different ways of thinking about it or there's been so there one guy was like I was working out of the gym listening to your podcast on con and I've got all these thoughts on con and I was like I know that guy I know that guy's like listen that guy's podcast like that guy's jacked and and Conti and shredding to philosophy. I know So anyway, so there's been I I think caught might be on something maybe yeah Yeah, I think today might resolve one or two of the concerns you had last time and then it will add some other concerns I think that you might have I also can't remember my concerns Okay, that was my next question you guys remember what we talked about last time gosh Or how or what we've gotten to categorical imperative the first time yes Oh my god That was the categorical imperative in the first episode and that is basically do the right thing acting away that everyone would follow the same universal eyes your particular yes act as if your maximum could be a universal law for everyone and in fact as if it were a Universal law of nature that people should do this that you could not just that not just that it could be that I think a lot of things could be a universal law, but that you should will that it be so that's the categorical imperative What else happened last episode?

Details good intention versus good outcome or is that the first one we're like we're aiming toward a good There's the distinction that you were drawing between that was probably the first episode where the truly good thing is a good will not necessarily Come in happiness. Yeah that mm Wow Yep, what happened last time? So last time we got into a big argument about whether or not the categorical imperative would work sort of as a hack for morality I content it and I now am fairly sure that that is not constant intention his intention is not to give us a guide post From morality, but simply to establish morality on some sort of solid ground on which we can argue because previous attempts at morality He thought we're wishy-washy they didn't really work They were based on empirical things and we talked a lot about last time how empirical things or experiences don't really work as a universal law of morality Because they're only for one instance of things. You can't you can't say just because this law should work here It should also work somewhere else you can't take an individual example and say everyone should do this The next question is why he's trying to establish that why where can we ground morality in a way such that everyone should do it without Self-interest and that without self-interest is the important bit.

So today we are going to sort of answer What what would we ground it on? The chategral comparative is grounded on that that it be a universalized individual thing and last time we talked especially about the Fort his his self-content formulation where he says you since you can't ground it on anything outside of the principle You have to ground it on it has to be just something universal and that gives us the very content of it You can't since you can't ground it on an individual thing It sort of suggests itself that it must be your will to a universal law that is the form formulation Did he give us a way of knowing if everybody is Equally skilled at being able to discern the categorical imperative He's I don't think he says no, okay That comes up later in the chapter, but he makes it very clear no and when we are acting as if we should it should be a universal imperative Yes Does he think that universal imperative does in fact exist in some kind of moral universe or like a world of forms? Yeah, or does he think that it doesn't but we all should do it You know he's doing getting like are we so how's this any different than saying? Right and wrong exist and you need to uncover you need to discern what the right thing is you have a conscience You have a moral compass that should tell you what to do versus so that he calls the moral sense Sorry, you have a moral sense and he will argue later about why that doesn't work and that's where I think some of your hackles Maybe which is which is great.

We'll talk about that. I tried to simplify my episode today where I Hackels down I'm not gonna talk about because this play to talk about right. I think you Grumming over stuff is a great catalyst for I'm not disgruntled. I'm perfectly grunting So I tried to sort of cut the fluff for this one So I'm gonna try to guide you through a few central principles and I think Graham You might get you might have stuff to say Thomas maybe you too We'll see where it goes first I wanted to actually get to the examples of morality that I hinted at last time We never really got to there were four examples he gives of the categorical imperative in action the first one I sort of mentioned and that is a man that feels sick of life as a result of a mounting series of misfortunes that is reduced into hopelessness His life is going bad.

He doesn't think it's gonna get any better so he decides to commit suicide So do we talk we talk about this one It's one of the four examples so this was the first one is that he decides to commit suicide The maxim though is that he cannot will this to be a universal law because then the will to preserve life would also be destroying it And it's a self-contradiction right so logically that this one doesn't work I don't know how that would work if you're talking to a man who is about to put suicide We say look man the logic of this just does not work out I don't know how compelling that would be yeah But his point is that here it applies because of an instant contradiction in what the man is willing right? He's willing something that cannot exist both ways the maxim therefore let's see to quote the only further question But one sees at once that a nature whose law was that the very same feeling meant to promote life should actually destroy life What contradict itself and hence would not endure as nature so it can't be a lot of nature. It's destroying your life It's all you're destroying all life life destroying life the the principle of Self-love right can you can you he the principle the suicide is thinking is I make it my principle out of self-love to shorten my life If it's continuous threatens more evil than it promises advantage So can we want that to be a universal principle that all mention the same no right okay? What about someone who is going to sacrifice themselves to like save other people that's not this case I think would that be like would you say that that person who makes that decision is Making the right choice from the category of comparative I think you would want anybody to do this Yeah, I don't know if I want anybody to do this if I wanted like I wouldn't want like a 12 year old to do it for me So one of the things I've thought about a ton since our last conversation is whether or not the category of imperative Works as a hack and I maintain I don't think so and I don't think what Kant is trying to do is reduce the complexity of moral questions Right should one sacrifice oneself for the good of others well This is obviously a complex moral question who are you saving?

It is five school children probably what about five murders people on death row? That's a little more complex right and so that that question there he says you can use this as a guy But I don't think he's trying to reduce the complexity of moral questions. He's simply grounding it on something Okay, move on second example Second example is a guy that is out of money and he is going to try get some money He's gonna borrow it and he's gonna promise to pay it back even though he knows he won't pay it back Well, is that a moral thing? He says no because if he made this universal obviously no one would lend money if no one ever got me back So then it would destroy the whole idea of borrowing another self-contradation Okay, I think we talked about both those examples last time Yes, this next example is a man that has a talent with a certain amount of cultivation that could make him a useful man for all sorts of purposes But he sees himself in comfortable circumstances They prefer to give himself up to pleasure rather than bother about increasing and improving his fortunate natural aptitudes So he's really good at something maybe he's I don't know good music and he could make himself better for everyone's benefit But he's comfortable and doesn't want to so should that man Can he will that this be a universal law that one should relax rather than developing your national aptitudes?

He could will it but he would be wrong like that is not a good thing that he is doing right if everyone followed that same maxim So this this example and the one that follows it are a little bit different There's no automatic contradiction within the example Yeah But he you can't actively will that everyone should do this that everyone should not develop their natural aptitudes and kind of Detriment of everybody and the fourth one it's the same kind of thing where you can't will it It's the miser he doesn't hurt anybody, but he doesn't he doesn't want to give to anybody Let's everyone's fortune be their fortune could this be a universal law same thing it could yeah But you can't actively will that no man should help his neighbor, right? So that is the two kinds of things that break the Category comparative one is when it becomes a self-contradiction and the other is when it you can't really actively will it as something That should be a law of nature that wouldn't apply. So why don't we as another example ask this question should people sacrifice for men on death row? So it falling cons policy we're saying is there some internal contradiction the answer that is no there's no contradiction there So you could will that thing but then you're into the question of is that a good policy to follow and then yeah I mean should I will that all men should that if Murderers when danger that all men should sacrifice themselves for them those murders And that's where I was gonna ask you on the miser one and you can do it here too I don't know what tool content providing to answer that question It's the same as kind of work kind of work on parrot Right provided that there are men who are on death row that are in danger Can you will that can you will that all men should put themselves in danger to save them?

Yeah, like people shouldn't like the part of it I think your cells on fire you're cooking away and they're so they're being they're being transported from a place to another What if we can't find then there's like a chicken like truck on a railway tracks? Yeah, they're Joe. Oh, I think we can say that you should say them right as murderers What if they were being shipped to die the very next day? I think that's a no I can't believe all men should sacrifice themselves for a bunch of guys are gonna die the next day Yeah, there's something about it where this like this is premature And this is not the way that they've been it said that they were going to die sure something about that seems wrong Yeah, so this is a this is still complex moral question, right?

I don't know that we can escape it by using the category of okay, okay, that's my question again with the miser one Okay What is he saying what what is the reason that because there's a there's a cost to giving your money away? You then have less money to do other things So what is what is the evidence to say that like this is it is better that people act in a way where they are willing to give their money away? With our more magnanimous. He says for a will that intended this to you know They give their money to keep them away to keep them I keep you would be in conflict with itself since many situations might arise in which the man needs love and sympathy from others And in which by such an age law of nature generally about his own will he would rob himself of all hope of help that he wants Yeah, so if this was a law of nature and he comes in a future destitution He can't hope for help yeah, right?

So even there with a little self-interest so there's a kind of utilitarianism here like it's the benefits that come from it not necessarily the Goodness of giving money away. I'm so glad you brought that up. It's right into what we're gonna talk about the self-benefit So quick note he says the most typical problem we have is not that we can't figure out the right thing It's that we really kind of want something we have inclinations And so we evaluate it and then we make an exception for ourselves and make an excuse and sort of justify it and say yes But I want this thing so here's here's what the situation really is and then we sort of give ourselves a pass I think we all do this it's just self self justification right justifying your sin and this is a thing that everybody does And so I don't think he's way off base here like you evaluate it You know what's right logically and even rationally and then you're like I want to do something else and so you sort of change it up Okay, do you don't want to read that bit? No, I think we had a listener right in with that point as like that is a thing that's very helpful about the categorical imperative to say We're not making rules just for ourselves.

We're saying everyone has to act this way You don't get to have a special out in this situation. Oh man. You guys are feeding into the rest of the episode so well That's so great. Okay, but we still need a goal a thing.

We are working towards So you hinted towards some sort of utilitarianism He I think recognizes that there needs to be something we are working for right if we have to will it to be a law Well, that law should apply to something for some sort of and does that make sense? Yes, he says and I quote Now I say let's see I say a human being and in general every rational being does exist as an end in himself Not merely as a means to be used by this or that will as it pleases in all his actions whether they are directed to himself or to other Rational beings a human being must always be viewed at the same time as an end and he's and I will jump a big section and continue reading The ground of this principle is rational nature exists as an end in itself This is the way in which a human being necessarily conceives of his own existence So we think of ourselves as an end right you think of yourself as an end you think of yourself as an end I do the same thing This is way everyone thinks of themselves. So he says and it is therefore a subjective principle of human actions So subjective you think of yourself as an end so your actions are subjectively about that But it is also the way in which every other rational rational being conceives of his existence So we all have that problem on the same rational ground Which also holds for me hence it is at the same time an objective principle from which since it is a supreme practical ground It must be possible to derive all laws of the will so Because you think you are an end in yourself and I think the same thing and so does everyone who's rational that is the objective principle By which we can act right a human being is an end in themselves because we all think the same way That's the way that he proves it So all laws must be applicable in a way that supports man as an end in itself So this is another formulation of the categorical imperative act is if your law your maximum of action Must it must be compatible with treating people as an end in themselves rather than as a means thoughts Can I just be clear on what is the difference between a means in an end? So he's saying that people to be treated not as you're using them to get something out of them Is that is that what he means by the difference between the two?

Yeah, so I should act in a way that is beneficial to people not to extract something from them with no return benefit to that person That's yes, what he's saying But is there a time in a person's life when they think of themselves as an end that they know that they should be seen that They should be used as a means for somebody else Like isn't it good that I am a means to the end to your happiness But you are acting in such a way that treats me as an end in itself, right? And I don't think you would make yourself a means to that end Right? And this is why slavery is so reprehensible to mankind is that you are creating treating the other person as a means rather than as an end And I think what you're talking about is maybe giving one's life up for one's friend Maybe I'm thinking like all right, let's say let's say AJ that you want to go see a new horror movie Okay, and like you've been talking about it for weeks Got it and I don't like horror movies sure I really want to see it Yeah, but you're like I know you don't like going to see movies by yourself come bums out And no one's gonna go see it with you And so I go and I watch that horror movie because You are gonna have a great time with the friend watching a horror movie and I don't really want to watch it I don't want to spend $12 on a horror movie, but I'm doing it because you're gonna be you're happy And I am being a means I you are treating me as a means to your end which is happiness and I'm cool with that So I think in this case Maybe it is right for you to volunteer your time Yeah, but then if I'm also going to treat you as an as an end in itself I know you hate for movies man. I'm not gonna ask you so then you're not gonna go to the horror movie and I'm not gonna go to the horror movie And we're gonna go watch cars instead.

No cars to cars 6 or whatever So if I there's got to be a point where I wait for RC cars Not be a great movie. My battery But no, but okay, so in that movie theater would be AJ But like if you see though, it would be a random random guy like yeah You would think about going with AJ you would not think about going with random guy if a person you've never met before walks up to you and says Hi, I want to go see a horror movie. I don't like to go to movies alone Yeah, come with me are you even considering that off? No, I would find out weird me out So then what's the difference there that ages my friend?

So what do you get something out of that friendship? Yes, but not I do but not in this particular evening. Yes, but like a friendship is not just a single moment It's that collection of moments. So like you could imagine AJ could ask you that or AJ could all think the only reason I'm doing this is for my own self-serving That's why people are in friendships We're gonna be a martyrdom if you if AJ was only asking things of you and you got nothing from it That's not a friendship.

Yeah, so there has to be some equality there. I guess so yeah So can't say wrong for me to accept that if I know you were horror movies I can't saying that you shouldn't go to the horror movie with the guy who doesn't want to go by himself the random guy Yeah, yeah, because there's no reason to do that Yeah, there's no you are treated purely as a means and let's say you'll never talk to the guy either Like you are solely a means to him not feeling alone in the movie theater or whatever So his actions are wrong So actions are wrong and if you go through with it, you're being you're doing the wrong thing as well Yeah, you're allowing things I think your action would be maybe a slight moral positive like you're trying to do something nice for somebody else But you're treating yourself as a mean what if he needs us what if he's like starving? It's like I need a sandwich. I'm like I'm ever gonna talk to you again.

You're not my friend Okay, and in both of these things I think we are treating him as an end in itself He is in that situation the rando is treating you as a means Yeah, so your thing is fine Right? You're not treating yourself as a means you are treating him as an end with yourself and slight sacrifice He would be wrong to do it. That's worth right? But if I but if he is wrong to do it, it might not then also wrong to deny him Like I'm not gonna move you with you.

You would not be wrong I think again Maybe if concept something different please say so but you would be treating yourself as a means to his happiness alone Yeah, and you would be allowing yourself to be treated as so if I allow myself to be treated as a means Contising that that is wrong in any circumstance. I don't see why I would differentiate based on others herself So I think let's be let's be careful I want to say treating as a means to something that is other than human Right, so if you are subjected to somebody else using you for something else's sake like they want cash they want gold Like it's not humanity at the end of the road So that is why this other fella is wrong is because he is treating you as a means for his enjoyment of the film Yeah, right or I mean he's still humanity is still the end of it. He wants to feel good I guess yeah, I guess it's not so he's he's using you to get to something that is non-human yes you Are still aiming at the human right so your action I would say is probably a good thing right or at least to offer right that is a offer self sacrifice You are trying to help someone treating him as an end his action is I think therefore wrong here's my be positive But if I'm doing it and allowing him to follow through in the wrong action Yeah, then I think you're treating yourself as it yeah I think Thomas is right here probably treating yourself as a means so then is there any chance is there any circumstance where you Can treat yourself as a means and that is a noble thing I think are you think you're something like sacrifice to your men might get away if you're a commander oh that or I'm thinking of the crucifixion Yeah, so I'm wondering if there's a I wonder if we might accidentally leak into utilitarianism here where the question is What helps the greatest amount of humanity? Yeah, I'm not a big Bentham fan.

Yeah, yeah He's pickled or stopped well He's reserved and someone stole his head liked a hundred years ago is that the one that's on display yeah? I know I swear to him. Yeah, and someone to his head anyway So I guess yeah, is it I guess I'm saying that's my question is it ever appropriate to allow yourself to be treated as a means He says you shouldn't treat other people as a means But can you treat yourself as a means for something or is that an immoral action against yourself? It's a great question because if if you can do that if you can treat yourself as a means then what stopping you from treating other people as a means I think it depends on what it's a means for it with yes, and then and then we Agree with you, and then we don't have a helpful heuristic no we do if the means is if you are a means to the a greater help to humanity Yeah, right I think can't be fine with this right you are like you are like it is a greater help for humanity If you sacrifice yourself so you're men get away.

Yeah, right? But if you are me sacrificing like James It's all my men can get away you pick some random. Yeah, what am I doing in my company be like hey buddy, you know The I mean Star Trek talks about this tools for the leader sometimes you gotta send one man to his death to save many But there's that a moral action we mean like is it a good action? Yeah, is that is that following the category compare?

Yeah, I was at the point of the movies like the explorer whether the cuz first Spock sacrifices himself But then they go yeah, but then over the news and they go back and like save him so yeah He comes back with like a magic life torpedo under the whole thing right? I'm not sure I remember any of this I was thinking of one episode of the next generation where Riker consistently failed the captain test and was because he was unwilling to send I don't know commander Dinkus into the tube that would certainly kill him with radiation in order to save the ship Oh, yeah, she Maroo test no the Kobayashi Maroo is on its the unminable test. Yes, right So when you always lose like it's almost impossible. Yeah, it wasn't Spock died already Asian He was in the lake and he was all like melting away and bones was crying And then but then they brought back to life with it was a Genesis torpedo right they shot it Yeah, and the spot was like a blank slate baby as a man Before they go back to like 1980s Los Angeles great.

That's a great movie Yeah, two four six the even ones are supposed to be the great ones, but they're all all them again I'm sorry for the next hour. Yeah, and then I was so fine. God. Yeah that well kind of but Con't okay, so maybe maybe this helps So he comes back to the four examples and he talks about those with the going back in the criteria Are can we is it like evaluating them?

How do we treat people as ends rather than mean so the guy that's gonna commit suicide? Clearly he's treating himself as a mean towards happiness rather than an end right? That's interesting Okay, the second one the guy who is trying to borrow money and he's gonna lie to other fella using the guy's treating the other guys I mean right thirdly the guy that is kind of he's got a talent But he doesn't really want to cultivate it. That's a harder one Yeah, it says it needs to harmonize with the idea of humanity as an end of itself And so because he's not cultivating his own things Others then he's not really harmonizing with it same with the last fella.

What if he's gonna make like really annoying music? Music And the last one is you know He is he's not harmonizing with humanity as an end itself and here's the little sense that I think my last guy was the miser I was money So I think this last time I help for the ends of any person who is an end in himself must if this idea is to have its full effect In me be also as far as possible my ends So if I'm the commander and my whole troop wants to survive their ends are my ends, right? And I think their ends might outweigh mine. Okay, trying so far I guess I how does Christian charity fill into this like the love that that does not require anything in return Are you not using yourself as a means for the people's ends then and then you're treating yourself as a means?

I don't know. Yes, there is a contradiction But I don't know if you're treating yourself as a means you're treating humanity as an end Are you a means to that end or are you simply pursuing humanity and you think humanity is better off with more people as like being charitable than? You're you're treating your money as a means to the end of other people's happiness That makes sense usually the person giving it away. They get something like Francis St.

Francis giving away his wealth his father's wealth whatever That's actually a complicated story But like Francis gets something out of that too. He gets holiness He gets to be at peace or whatever and also people benefit from his wealth He is an end in that giving as well as the means to the benefit of others You might like there's something there where the charity isn't just that you give money away It's who you become as a part of giving money away like you are an end still in that charity. Yeah, so I guess virtue He who is virtuous like is only ever gonna get good things, right? Like I'm trying to think of examples where you're doing something that is clearly noble and good and you get nothing from it But in all those instances you're getting something from even feel like martyred for something This is the boethius thing, right?

Like even though you're gonna die the next day you can wallow in pity if you want to you don't you don't have to that You're giving up at that situation like you are being worked on as an end in that moment as well. Okay, right? I think there's probably more to say there, but yeah Good yes moving on moving on. Okay.

No hackles. The hackle my hackle. They are in bed. They're asleep The really funny thing is that in doing this I always expect it to come from one direction Yeah, and the it comes from it comes from I never anticipate where the difficult is we and that's a great question Can you treat yourself as a means in for sake of charity?

Again, I'm not sure unless you are sacrificing yourself for others I think you're creating something else as a means like your money or your time or something like that You know what hackles are what are haggles? It's the hair on the back of your neck It's the hairs along the back of a dog or other animal that rise if it's angry or alarmed Give me fur a long narrow feather on the neck or saddle of a domestic rooster or other bird. That's so I'm liking this. Okay, great.

That's a hackle Just in case anyone else was curious. Okay, so from this idea that we are all ends and ourselves Then the subject of every end is a rational being right so that's what we're shooting for so you have to this is where we sort of get to the conception of a you like of the human as a a Universal law giver that gives law to itself. Wow. I've skipped a thing I'm gonna do this whole thing.

I just read it right so he's he talked about how we have to harmonize our our Log giving with the human person as both an end and a universal law giver because you aren't ending yourself and because you are going through The categorical imperative you are both a subject and the law giver. So is it a thing you're creating or thing you're discovering? Yes, well, okay, the more creating right well It's I think he is he is saying is this something we could will that would be not a universal natural law without contradictions And harmonize with humans and as and so I think he's trying to say that this is this is the actual way that morality works But you if you are evaluating situations and saying this maxim should or should not be then you end up being a loggiver You are taking the categorical imperative and applying it to the instance right so that makes you a loggiver And the reason we even have to talk about this I didn't get it for a really long time And I think the reason he wants this that you are not only the subject about the law giver is that you usually as the subject of a law Right if you are a citizen and you follow the law you do it for the sake of something else I follow the law to avoid a ticket. I follow the law to get you know a tax return I follow the law because of either punishments that I want to avoid or things I want to get so I haven't ever go to help Yes, so if you are only subject to the law the problem is is that say I don't want that thing anymore The law no longer applies.

Yeah, he's trying to establish the law is something that is unevitable What if I give two rips about heaven? I'm going to hell I hide friends I said I'm gonna go to hell that's where the party is thereby Absolving their culpability in morality if they just don't want the you know I don't care about the carriities and they don't give a rip about the stick Then morality does not apply to them and he's trying to say separate from whatever you want whatever you get anything else That's outside of the law itself this applies because you are the one giving the law right if you are merely a Subject or a citizen there has to be some further incentive based on an actual tangible end rather than simply this is duty Right, but because you are the law giver and the subject it will always apply whether or not you want that thing or not So Graham in your instance if I if you are talking about charity You should give charitably regardless of whether you get anything out of it because it is merely your duty because you are Both subject to this moral law and the law giver itself. Why can't my category categorical imperative be? Everyone should do as much as they can to get theirs That's universal law, baby.

Let's go for it everyone in the ring We're gonna fight it out We're gonna try to get ours try to get try to get your bag try to get your money meg be because you treat people is means Doesn't matter that's but it's not universalizing it everybody This is I'm expecting this of everybody and I want everybody to do this But there's that's the problem is you're treating other people as means rather than they're treating me as means And I'm you know so wrong why are they wrong because they are treating you as a means so what why is that wrong? Because every human conceives of himself as an end yes, you think you are an end yeah And if other people treat you as a means that's not okay why not? I'm treating them as a means how come I can't make that my universal imperative because it's illogical you want to treat yourself as an end and have Other people be means but yeah, it's in contradiction with what you know everyone wants is cons argument But we're all but we're all competing against each other like you're gonna treat me as a means I'm gonna treat you as a means and that's and we'll see who wins I Think what you're asking is why should anyone care what contest is? I'm saying how does cut is caught everything that people are gonna come into other moral agreement or get out of the Nietzschean power game Because they're reasoning about what ought to be or what is the universal moral law based on is this thing that ought to be Willed in the entire world that all people would act this way so your question is what's what's to make all people follow this law?

Is that what you're saying? I mean if there's so there's no other there's that and if let's say that let's say that you know Every person in cons you know everybody in the universe does cons moral imperative just treating everybody as ends and That creates a tremendous opportunity for the one guy that's not going to do that And he's gonna treat everybody as a means and if everyone assumes that you know like I'm just saying you're like There is nothing compelling somebody to be a boy scout There's not you're right I mean the question is the cons question is not is this going to make the world a better place his question is can you walk up to the one guy Who's making everyone else a means and say don't I can't say that yeah because because it's grounded in But let me finish You're like the question isn't will he listen the question is can you with logical grounding say he should follow this thing whether or not It gets him what he wants that this is this is duty. It is not okay to treat people as means He's caught con is trying to say yes, this applies whether or not he is like Maybe this guy the street people means doesn't give two crap about heaven, right? Maybe that's his thing Maybe he doesn't give two crap about anybody or being logically consistent or being logically consistent and con points us out He's like yeah, people probably aren't gonna follow this doesn't really matter My this is not necessarily my goal my goal here is to ground morality in something other than I want X Right because then it applies universally rather than only if you want X, right?

Yeah, could I get the guy to stop by saying do this or I'll cut your legs off? Yes, but that isn't morality that is a threat, right? Contising morality has purchase on every person whether they follow it whether they want it whether it's actually gonna make a world better It doesn't matter. He's saying this is this is morality and not therefore everyone will be a good person He's not taking that next step.

He hasn't in fact. I think it's something that I haven't talked about yet He's saying look this is the formulation and it comes from pure reason I haven't even established that pure reason is a thing so we're making already a jump that I'm gonna establish in the third Yeah, as far as I understand it again not philosophy PhD But he says the critique of pure reason happens in chapter three as of right now We haven't proved hardly any of this exists, but rationally This is morality you are a law giver and because you are the law giver You are also subject to the law and therefore it is your duty and because all of us have to treat humans at ends And we are all law givers this means we are a kingdom and this is this is the next section We are a kingdom of ends where Graham you have things you want you want a nice house You want your dog to be safe? You want your wife to be safe? You want to clean up those trees because you are an end to me then I have to treat some of the things that you want your ends as My ends right?

It's actually sort of establishes Terry and this is his goal could people make it their kind of work comparative to poop on the little guy? Yes, can't would point out you're being inconsistent. That's not morality you are doing it wrong the guy That's a listen, but caught will be right I think Why is that not consistent because you're treating them as a means? Yeah, and the reason that treating people as means is bad is because Because every human alive conceives of rational beings as ends of themselves or they can see that themselves as an end Yeah, because everybody does that human are humans are ends and I think your issue is that that's a weak spot I guess I'm saying like congratulations weakling you think of yourself as an end, but I don't care I I mean I guess the fact that people are like me Compels me to treat them like I want like I want to be treated doesn't make sense to me I don't understand how he says that that is a priori So the logical jump there I also have trouble with his his jump to man or any rational being as an end in itself simply because that's the way we can see Of ourselves mm-hmm.

Yeah seems to me to be Serious like hey Graham AJ thinks about himself in the same way that you think about yourself So you should treat AJ as someone who thinks about himself in the same way you dream about yourself Well, I think it's because you as thinking of yourself as an end rather than a means you expect people to treat you as an end So does everybody else I don't know if that's true That's not this was my first point is like are there times when you give up you are being treated as an ends to be a means for Somebody else's end and is that not cool? It would not be cool It would be not cool of the other person to ask that of you right? But then there's something where it's like well this poor guy doesn't want to see the movie by himself and he's obviously gotten to the place Where he's just asking like a stranger to go to the movie and sure it's kind of sad But say no to that what you shouldn't go to that nothing's nice poor guy if you don't know this person Is not going to be these strangers? I don't know that's just because of a safety thing.

Yeah, yeah Yeah, where I thought your guys's issue would come was that leap to human beings or any rational being as an end to itself Do not do dogs not consider themselves. I don't want to do this again Well, just I mean like I don't have to extrapolate that far to say that creatures also consider themselves and end in themselves They eat they take care of themselves. There's also why not they don't sacrifice themselves for I mean maybe like the parents do Well, why not why not God is the end of itself? Why is he not the end as far as my understanding of scripture is that the purpose of humans is to glorify God and join forever We are a means to that glory of God So is there is there a balance there?

This is where I expected the issue to come from was you guys not think that? Are you guys are okay with human being before being means just Christ use himself as Christ when he empties himself and did not consider God a thing to be grasped I talk about in Philippians the Philippians him and Christ empties himself and becomes man to die on the cross Is that not him acting as a means to our end? Is that not the sacrifice? It is Christ sacrifice not a means to an end?

I mean, he's not back, huh? So then that kind of makes it feel like it's like oh well, then it wasn't that big a deal is caught intentionally trying to provide an a religious or just with no regard to religious system of morals. I think so he won't Yes, he's on reason it has to be a prior. I think because because Well, let's let's jump to this.

This next section is why other systems don't work, right? I'm skipping over the rest of the kingdom events. It's fun. He's basically trying to unite all of man under this morality It's not just your morality, but because we are a kingdom of ends as each one of us being a subject and universal lawmaker Then it's a kingdom morality is applicable to all Then talk about dignity and price blah blah comprehensive review probably been helpful Okay, all right, so then he says special problems with previous and pure and pure system principles So let me read it one about the One's own happiness as the guiding principle of morality the principle of one's own happiness is however the most objectionable Not because it is false Not just because it is it is false and because it's claimed that well-being always adjusts itself to well-doing is contradictive by experience So just because you want like you think this will make you you are you happy that will always mean that you do a good thing Not merely because it contributes nothing whatever towards establishing morality So if we base it on human happiness, what does that mean for like we have to we don't really know quite what that means human happiness And what will actually lead us there and so it doesn't necessarily establish morality since making people happy is quite different from making them good and making Them prudent or clever in seeking their own advantage is quite different from making them virtuous It is most objectionable because by lab-basing morality on sensuous motives which undermine it and totally destroyed Sublimity since it puts the motives of virtue in the same class as those of vice and teaches us not only to become Attaches us only to become better at calculation the specific difference between virtue and vice is completely obliterated when you engage in vice You are trying to feel happy right and he's saying then if we base morality on trying to feel happy What is different between virtue and vice?

What he just defined virtue as that which is in alignment with the categorical imperative or does he what's it again? Like what does he mean by virtue if he's trying to restructure morality or if he's trying to give this tool of the categorical imperative I think you would say acting acting in accordance with that as humans as themselves in a kingdom events and such that your maxim can apply to everyone okay, I Mean there's happiness is complicated when it comes to those sorts of things because it's like it comes in these different layers, I don't know like I know that eating a donut right now would make me happy and In the right now eating that donut but I also know that like a life of health is also going to be happy in the long run and so I have competing competing happiness and so Just because happiness has these competitions doesn't mean that it should not you can't use that as a metric for deciding what to do Like he's saying People go after vicious things that makes them happy therefore because they want to be happy therefore We're not going to use happiness as our basis for morality. It's like well But there there's there's greater happiness like there is also happiness that comes with morality But then see you're driving happiness from morality not morality from half No, but I can say like oh I should be I'm gonna be a discipline I should be a disciplined person because I know that when I am disciplined. I'm actually gonna be happy I got this is gonna be better for me.

So I'm going to do the moral thing So so you said you've already identified it as moral and said therefore it will make me happy He's okay with this. He's saying you cannot say this thing will make me happy therefore it is moral Right so he says happiness does not work like human happiness the thing that will make you happy is not a good guy So maybe maybe he's answering kind of the modern notion like do what feels good or you do you or do what makes you happy? He says that's not a good way to do it because it's the same as vice, right? Which I think we've seen in effect.

Yeah, right? Okay. Okay now. Let's talk about moral sense Right.

Just feeling out what is right and wrong he addresses that too on the other hand moral feeling this alleged special sense However shall it be the appeal to it when people who are unable to think hope to help themselves out by feeling So if you can't think right and you can feel out what's good even when the question is solely one of universal law and however Little feelings differing as they do naturally from one another by an infinity of degrees can supply a uniform measure of good and evil So our feelings are always really different about what's gonna happen So make a pretty bad measure of good and evil let alone the fact that one person by his feeling can make no valid judgments at all for Others just because you feel that it is right doesn't mean that others have to do it Moral feeling still remains closer to morality and to its dignity in this respect It does virtue the honor of ascribing to her directly the approval and esteem in which she has held and does not as it were Tell her to her face that we are attached to her not for her beauty But for our own advantage so he says that actually works better So this moral feeling even though people feel different things and by a bunch of degrees and because just because you feel that this is right Doesn't mean anyone else should follow it at least that's better than saying I do this for my own happy advantage, right? with me Graham Kind of I just how's Kant gonna get out of? Using reason which is a tool or which is a method? How is he going to use that to get to the odd statements?

We ought to do this he's saying that I can ground my we ought to do this well He grounds it in humanity humanity humanity is good and the moral imperative But where does he even get the standard to say that those then are desirable or good things like Do you know what I'm saying like at some at some sense you have to you have to pause it something metaphysical? Well, I think that's I think that's probably where he gets human beings aren't ended themselves Like he gets there a little bit logically, but he says this is how you conceive of yourself You think man is good because you think you are good. Yeah, well, I mean like We're for all wrong like like how does he doesn't matter because that's what the way we function says this is how we but so Are you trying to establish a good outside of humanity? Yes, okay?

Yes, I'm getting what's his relationship to the idea of like the tower the idea that there's an objective morality out there that we are in as Opposed to we are creating it ourselves based on these you know based on two starting blocks The starting blocks of we're all ends in ourselves and then using a category So I think what he's doing and I think he actually might be amenable to this is he is trying to say that the tau is not just something That exists that we have to look for he's saying it has a rational grounding so he is he is trying to tie the tau I don't think I'm going to say I mean he might be trying to establish it But he's not he's not just saying like there's the tau and then there's rationality and they're separate He's saying the tau is a rational thing right that we can have grounded in rationality and I he might be over waiting that and saying the tau springs from that But I am okay with the project of saying that tau is not just a thing that we are Compelled to follow in something that humans naturally do it has a rational grounding in and of itself, right? I am universalist I think that there are universal principles that undergird every human action He is trying to say these things that we do these virtues are rational things that have purchased on the human Whether or not they want heaven or hell or they want happiness or unhappiness or whatever they feel it is it is rationally a thing It is also a thing like he's attaching the tau to the earth with with rationality, which is I think a good project So it's reasonable it's rational. Yes, the tau is a rational thing then is if there is something that can have reason It is de facto going to have ethics. He actually says that this applies not just to humans But to all rational intelligences so any computer that we make that is I guess what's the difference between like a computer that can do Like an AI they can do a lot of function like in that can do like a lot of data analysis Like you know the chat GTP or that thing GPT it's not actually like thinking through the essay correct It's just like giving it's not aware.

It's not aware I think the awareness there is it cannot possibly conceive of itself as an end right we can program it to gosh But it can't conceive of itself as an end and therefore can conceive of like we can program it to think of us as ends And this is I think where we get our foundational principles of robotics It never harm a human yeah Yeah, yeah, I don't know what they are people still talk about those use them in robotics And that is I think perhaps an outflow of what we have here Which is saying that humans are ends in themselves because it's the way we conceive of ourselves robots are yet But now we've used different terms we've used reason we've used rationality and now we've used awareness those seems different so awareness I'm not equating to reason and rationality awareness. I'm saying that the machine cannot possibly conceive of itself as an end Until it is self-aware can a machine be rational it can put it be rational sure but like ours are not okay So if it could be rational then does that machine I have more than can does that of course as far as context is from that machine is gonna be bound By ethics I think so yeah, that's that's we've got you know command data. Yeah, I'm by ethics machine Just turn them off just end the whole that would not be treating him as an Ah, there we go. He's gonna be his robot if he is self-aware Yeah, and he's a rational creature why not can you walk up and just flip off data and be like screw you pal yeah Or turn his power switch off that'd be messed up.

I would be messed up I mean because he's self-aware. He's a creature You'd be chill so we walk up and turn off data I wouldn't because that would be equivalent to like killing I mean not they can be turned back on but that's equivalent to like killing someone Right in the in the Lord of Star Trek, right sure. Why are you uncomfortable with this? I don't know if I am Okay, well grime.

Thanks again one last thing and I'll actually finish my episode Yeah, so why can't we use God and Jesus as our source of morality? Last one well the first question is why can't we use a conception of perfection? Why isn't perfection the thing where we derive morality was like first we don't know it It's not only part of this world as far as we can we're concerned So it ends up being circular because we're evaluating perfection based on a standard We already sort of have in our heads, right? So we don't just clearly see it and say yes, this is perfect there for morality and we can't really use God because we have reason in our heads Well, keep sorry, so Still it is better than the theological concept which derives morality from an all-perfect divine will not merely because we cannot directly apprehend God's perfection We can't fully understand it and can only derive it from our own concepts, right?

So we only can conceive of God as where we are among which that of morality is preeminent So we already sort of have a morality in there and we're sort of evaluating God's actions there But because if we do not do this the concept of God's will that remains for us is made up of such attributes as lust for glory and dominion Bound up with frightful ideas of power and vengefulness Inevitably the foundation for a moral system that would be directly opposed to morality Yet if I had to choose between the concept of moral sense and that of perfection in general God included so like the just feeling of morality I should decide for the letter for this since it at least withdraws the decisions of the question from sensibility and brings it before the court of pure reason So we're imperfection in God. So I think that's better than just feeling it out even though it there decides nothing does still preserve Undistorted the indeterminate idea far more a far more precise definition So we can't use God because if we're honest when we look at the scripture, we're sort of already evaluating Okay, Jesus's actions. We're helping people. Ah, that's good We're not deriving our good from it and because we only have a limited understanding of who God is and so any morality We derive there from would be busted but because if we did drive it directly from the actions of God We should also imitate wanting personal glory being vengeful being jealous being like having dominion and that might not be the best thing for us It's so interesting because he's he's not saying that you would look to scripture for something He's saying that you look from the actions of God you would try and understand from how God did yeah And that just seems strange for him not to look to know the scripture Yeah, well he's I guess people say you know do we derive it from the divine we try to be like the divine and that's where morality comes from And saying no, that's not really that's not really the thing we can't derive it from the actions of God Which which honestly we drive from God's commandments to us probably yes Yeah, but even then we are we also sort of recognize the goodness in scripture and then say yeah These these fit which kind of jives with the question I had all the time growing up when people said be like Jesus and I was like he did a lot of things I probably shouldn't Claim to be God We were to shut people over out of church He had a bunch of followers that he would you know Tell to do things and have prophecies and let people praise him and lay palm fronds in front of him as he wrote And there's a lot of things I probably shouldn't do that Jesus did but there are things I should do and that's healed a sick And so where am I where am I getting that evaluation from their actions of Jesus?

I should not do and their actions of Jesus I should well clearly there's some other standard by which I'm sort of bonking these against Which might be the towel which has a rational basis Can I okay well me think through this sure let's say I'm very poor I don't very much money I'm starving yes, and I go to and I break into a rich man's house Okay, and I raid his fridge and I'm sitting down in his kitchen I'm eating a sandwich yes, and the rich man comes out and he's like hey man. What are you doing? Get on my house. You shouldn't be eating my food Why am I doing a wrong thing wait?

Are you the rich man or the poor man? Because you are treating that man as a means to an end but but what the end is like the end is feeding a human Why is he not treating me as an end if he was to do the moral thing He would say keep the sandwich you do exactly what Jesus says which is if a person steals your coat You know your shirt given your so I should come I can come into his house And he should let me have the sandwich and I have given him the opportunity to do a moral action You are doing the wrong thing Why am I doing the wrong thing you are treating as a means to an end which is your sandwich, but I should spell how come I can't say Every is the reason because I can't say every poor person should go into a rich person's house and get her food Yes And it doesn't harmonize with the idea of humanity as an end itself that if he's got more than you can go just go take all of his Things like should everyone do this? No should we have a law of nature that poor men can rob the rich? No, but why shouldn't poor people be able to do it not all people but people that don't have enough in Conspirant work, it's the treating people as means you're only you're taking something from someone is the wrong part there But I'm taking something from someone that he has already that he when the moment happens realizes that he should be giving to me Because when he's gonna treat me as an end he's gonna give me a sandwich So someone in need sure yeah, so then why is my action that prompts his good action immoral?

So he asking for that sandwich or the seeking it out like it's the theft is the problem there Yeah, because you're not giving him the opportunity Okay, what if I go and ask for a sandwich and he says no and then I go and I take the sandwich and then he says you're right You should have had this don't take sandwiches He was probably in the wrong saying no which you know God says those that asks you should give to every time So every person who asks me for a thing I'm in the wrong if I don't give it to them I think the scripture was meant to those in need if I come up and I say hey can I have your house Mm-hmm. I'm definitely doing a wrong thing and you are also doing a wrong thing and giving it okay the poor man says Can I have your house? I say no the poor man says can I have a sandwich and I say yes the poor man says can I have a sandwich every day? And I say no His own hunger, but he yes So then but he's got but he's treating me as a means to his own hunger But if I if it is moral for me to give him a sandwich on a Monday, but not every Monday Why is that why isn't moral to give the sandwich once but not every day because there you can't it doesn't harmonize with the idea of Man as an end in itself because at that point you are enabling a bad behavior and he has things that he could cultivate to be a better Person so perhaps I'm why am I not enabling the bad behavior on the first sandwich because he might actually need a single sandwich But he might actually need a sandwich every Monday the but the pattern I mean at that point you need more information Doesn't need a sandwich every Monday because he's literally incapable of working cannot leave your doorstep in that case So this is my point which is Every time we as we talk about Kant the phrase we usually say is well we're gonna need more information before we can make a categorical imperative and my and my How can something be a categorical imperative when there's no such like if you're gonna have to go and get so much details you no longer have categories You have just like individual specific things that are happening well We've demonstrated right where The information matters and then if you can extrapolate that this be a you like a law of nature for all men So just because it needs more information in a specific instance the question is okay should this continue happening?

Is this something that should happen for everybody all the time? And I still think that like we've applied it several times in this line of questioning where I think the imperative here is that those with means Odds to feed the poor that's your question and I think that could be an imperative I say but I and I agree with that but I don't know how we get to that reason the how like it's Reason that gets us to that conclusion. We want to treat others as ins and themselves the Therefore why is treating others as an end in themselves a reasonable conclusion? Okay, so that's that's actually and I agree with you there I still that's the biggest problem I have with this section is that I think that him saying man is an end in himself That is the weakest part of him putting this together right that that we are simply an end in ourselves because that's the way we can see ourselves and that's the way everybody does he in fact does almost the same thing with the free will question later He's like we all sort of assume it so I'm gonna And he actually even admits like I could get way into this way super into the weeds But honestly for the sake of my argument it doesn't matter that matters that we think we have it So I'm just gonna roll with that we have it and here I think you're right I think him saying man is an end in and of himself is the most poorly established part of this entire thing But if I ask myself is man and end should I ever treat man as a means?

the only Only situation is if it's if I is if I'm considering God's glory right because at a certain point If you are a believer in predestination those who are destined for hell are he means to God's glory those who are glorified are he means to his glory but I thought about this a bunch Jesus doesn't or God doesn't treat us just as means he also treats this as ends because he sacrifices himself for us so So is man an end in himself? I think it needs more treatment than what he gave if I'm going to base an entire moral system on it Like honestly I do I don't think he establishes it well But is man an end? I think so does the categorical imperative imply largely or apply largely? I think so is it nice to have a rational grounding for the Tao and say look man you might not be a Christian You might not think good exists You are still subject to these laws of morality because of rationality you have a thinking mind I think that's a good thing I don't think it's good if people use it as an excuse themselves from religion Right because I mean the real question is whether God exists or not But is it good to have a rational grounding for it and being able to say yeah moral laws aren't just moral They are also rational.

I think that's nice. Yeah, I like it. Are we out of time? We're like way out of time.

Let's save it for the in-between episode Listeners, you can find us on patreon patreon.com slash classical stuff We're gonna record it in between episode right after this so if you want to hear this conversation keep going check out the patreon You can find us on twitter twitter.com slash cliscoll stuff clss stuff clss stuff you can email us the guys at classical stuff.net And you can find us on youtube probably still very behind on our episodes, but we're there so you can watch us there Whatever gets I don't know you like you guys a lot. Thanks for listening. Thanks for listening and we'll see you on