Kant's Philosophy

Nature around us seems too purposive and harmonic to be a product of chance. Physicotheology starts from the order of nature and from that deduces its divine originator and his attributes. This is the most natural, most easy to understand and original form of theology according to Kant. But one that, taken by itself, is insufficient to build religion on it but rather leads to paganism.Quote: 0:08The architectonic structure of theology: 2:03 Physicotheology: 7:43The architectonic deduction of the different fields of theology: 14:28The physicotheological argument for God: 22:13Physicotheology in Islam: 37:45The value of the physicotheological proof for God: 1:11:44The God of physicotheology: 1:24:14The refutation of the physicotheological proof for God: 1:55:08Physicotheology leads to polytheism and hylemorphism: 2:11:24The physicotheological proof for God secretly rests on the cosmological and ontological proof for God: 2:28:50That there can't be knowledge of God's existence has adventages: 2:37:32Physicotheology alone leads to paganism instead of religion: 2:43:08Thanks: 2:51:07Overview over theology according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/theology-according-to-Kant.pngThe table of categories according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/table-of-categories-according-to-Kant.jpgRabia of Basra: https://youtu.be/cVSZaxcg6RY?si=YolngW29JMqsOflfRemarks on physicotheology can be found in Kant's lectures on rational theology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_r0k1/mode/2up, and also in his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up (I am not aware of a free English translation of either). Besides that there is Kant's pre-critical The Only Possible Argument In Support Of A Demonstration Of The Existence Of God: https://archive.org/details/the-only-possible-argument-in-support-of-a-demonstration-of-the-existence-of-god/mode/2up wherein he explains the physicotheological proof for God very well and elegantly. § 85. of the Critique of the Power of Judgment: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48433/48433-h/48433-h.htm also contains important explanations on physicotheology. Finally, the refutation of the physicotheological proof for God is found in the third main part of the dialectic of pure reason in the Critique of Pure Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

A sub field of rational theology, in which we try to have cognition of God through reason and without the help of any revelation, is transcendental theology. In this field all experience is transcended and we think about God through pure reason. This leads to deism, a conception of God according to which God is the necessary being and original force from which the world emanated, but not a conscious intelligence acting according to purposes which could be revered or loved. On transcendental theology therefore no religion can be built, however it is important for clarifying and correcting our concept of God.Quote: 0:08Transcendental theology: 0:41Ontotheology: 7:23- The God of ontotheology: Deism: 16:24- The use of ontotheology: 35:24- 1. Refutation of polytheism: 37:15- 2. Refutation of pantheism: 50:53- 3. Protection against anthropomorphism: 1:02:13- 4. Refutation of dogmatic atheism: 1:04:21- The ontological proof for God: 1:06:20- The refutation of the ontological proof for God: 1:18:54Cosmotheology: 1:57:03- The cosmological proof for God: 1:57:24- Cosmotheology is transcendental theology: 2:05:33- The God of cosmotheology: Pantheism and world cause: 2:14:04- The refutation of the cosmological proof for God: 2:22:23Conclusion: 2:30:08Thanks: 2:35:05Overview over theology according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/theology-according-to-Kant.pngThe table of categories according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/table-of-categories-according-to-Kant.jpgThe table of judgments according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/table-of-judgments-according-to-Kant.jpgThe transcendental theology Kant discusses mostly in his lectures on rational theology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_r0k1/mode/2up, and also in his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up (I am not aware of a free English translation of either).Whoever is interested specifically in the two transcendental proofs for God and their refutation, should read the third main part of the dialectic of pure reason in the Critique of Pure Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The philosopher does not do revealed theology which presupposes believe in some divine revelation, but tries to have cognition of God through reason alone. Here he is met with the difficulty of how the finite creature may grasp the infinite creator, and most of all with the danger of sliding into anthropomorphism. Quote: 0:08Rational theology: 0:49The difficulty of the cognition of God and of anthropomorphism: 6:31How God can be talked about: 19:15Via eminentiae: 30:40Via negationis: 48:33Via analogiae: 1:09:45The fields of rational theology: 1:38:18Kant's architectonic: 1:44:12Thanks: 2:03:41The table of categories according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/table-of-categories-according-to-Kant.jpgOveriew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpgThe thinking faculty according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/faculty-of-thinking-according-to-Kant.jpgOverview over theology according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/theology-according-to-Kant.pngWhoever wants to get more in depth concerning Kant's theology and its method should study the lectures on rational theology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_r0k1/mode/2up, his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up also contain many remarks on rational theology (I am not aware of a free English translation of either).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

While religion is practical, theology is theoretical: A person's theology is the sum of the statements on God he considers to be true. These statements however theology can take from revelation or from reason. And here arises the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty on the way through which to gain cognition of God.Quote: 0:08The philosophy of religion is the crowning conclusion of Kant's philosophy: 0:29The contemporary neglect of philosophy of religion: 9:46Theology and religion: 24:29For true religion, correct theology is helpful but not necessary: 29:35Revealed theology and rational theology: 41:24The conflict of the theological and the philosophical faculty: 53:47Thanks: 1:26:18Of theology and the conflict between the theological and the philosophical faculty Kant talks in the first section of his Conflict of Faculties (I could not find a free English translation online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All moral action is working towards the realization of the highest good: A world in which people have happiness while also deserving it. But it is Kant's accomplishment to have shown two things: The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality, we ought not to realize it because it is good, it is good because we ought to realize it. And the two halves of the highest good cannot be united in the sensual world - whereby it is pointing beyond, towards a supersensual world and forming a bridge from moral philosophy to the philosophy of religion. Quote: 0:08The highest good in Kant's philosophy: 1:15The highest good doesn't mark the beginning but the end of morality: 3:34The highest physical good: 18:15The highest moral good: 36:36The highest (ethical) good: 1:02:32The dialectic of practical reason: 1:18:55Ancient attempts at solving the dialectic: 1:23:50The highest physical and moral good are separated: 1:39:11The highest juridical good: 1:51:31Most of the time morality and prudence align: 2:03:58Most people are bad and prefer their adventage over morality: 2:09:27The common objections against Kant: 2:19:38Morality is to be prefered over one's own adventage: 2:33:08The solution of the dialectic of practical reason in religion: 3:02:17Thanks: 3:09:49The highest good Kant discusses in his Critique of Pure Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4280/4280-h/4280-h.htm and most of all in his Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5683/5683-h/5683-h.htmWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Most people seek a passive happiness: Resting, indulging, receiving pleasure. Kant however is aware that there is also an active happiness: Being active, creating, bringing forth meaning.Quote: 0:08Kant teaches mostly a negative path to happiness: 0:20Possible sources of happiness: 8:48Passive & active happiness: 13:45Why activity is pleasurable: 35:28The active person doesn't only work but also rests or plays: 54:10The unity of all sages and philosophers on happiness and how today it is not discussed: 58:33Thanks: 1:19:42On activity and the happiness growing out of it Kant never talked comprehensively or systematically but rather made remarks in various places. It is recommended to study especially his lectures on his topic, both his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In theoretical regard Kant dismisses the idealism that declares the world to be a mere illusion. Practically, however, we should act as if it was true: We should consider the brevity and vanity of life, treat the world as a children's game and not take anything as important except our moral duty. This is the path to a constantly cheerful heart.Quote: 0:08Nothing in life has value except our morality: 0:22Life is short and fleeting: 27:54Mere life, measured by its pleasure, is worthless: 34:43Practical idealism: 54:18The power of imagination as condition of the possibility of practical idealism: 1:21:41The constantly cheerful heart: 1:51:44Abstraction as means to a happy life: 2:01:00Thanks: 2:22:23The posture of practical idealism and the constantly cheerful heart Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.) You may also gain an impression of Kant's attitude towards life with its brevity and towards death through his Thoughts on the Occasion of Mr. Johann Friedrich von Funk’s Untimely Death https://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/84129/excerpt/9780521884129_excerpt.pdfWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Each inclination is a chain. It binds us to the objects which we need for satisfying it. And the more we satisfy it the more we become dependent on it through habit and also get numb towards the pleasure. Whoever wants to be happy therefore should not chase after satisfaction of his needs but strive for having as little needs as possible. Kant recommends along with Epicurus a modest life: Don’t deny yourself delights, don’t live in complete asceticism, but be content with little and simple delights, enjoy other pleasures from time to time when there is an opportunity, but don’t make yourself dependent on them.Quote: 0:08The positive path towards happiness: Get what you require: 0:38The negative path towards happiness: Require little: 19:10Modesty instead of wantoness: 26:21People should be able to do without, but not actually do without everything: 38:36Whoever is dependent on things is immoral and unhappy: 1:04:14Kant's advices: 1:35:26- Abstain from futile desires: 1:36:13- Think how many live without whatever is a need to you: 1:39:54- Don’t let habits turn into inclinations through habit: 1:46:31- Always keep some pleasures in prospect for later: 2:08:18- Don’t sacrifice the whole for a part: 2:22:20- Keep in mind that every gain is a loss and the other way around: 2:30:54Conclusion: 2:41:24Thanks: 2:45:16The posture of modesty Kant discusses mostly in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

People's misery mostly doesn't come from outside difficulties or blows of fate but from them letting things affect their mood too much and being too sensitive. Against this Kant advises a stoic equanimity: Allowing no thing an influence on one's psyche, not being sad about anything except one's own bad behaviour. This however doesn't mean indifference: A person should be sentimental and should take things to heart, that is let himself be moved, but they should not rob him of his peace of mind.Quote: 0:08People aren't victims of their affections and passions: 1:29The wise person does not need to overcome himself but isn't at war with himself in the first place: 13:25People ought to be equanimous, not indifferent: 22:39People ought to take things to heart, not let them affect their mood: 31:46People ought to be sentimental, not sensitive: 51:55True equanimity comes from character: 1:02:40The oversensitivness of the present is an issue of civilization: 1:20:09Equanimity does not go together with hedonism: 1:38:07Thanks: 1:48:37The posture of equanimity Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

A person should tame their affections and passions. This is a moral duty, for through them you harm others but also lose your own reason and through this your freedom and your human dignity. It however is also advised pragmatically, for the affections and passions bring all kinds of misery upon people, an equanimous life which is free of them therefore is a more happy life.Quote: 0:08Happiness we attain through independence: 0:58Affections: 8:57Passions: 33:36The similarities between affections and passions: 49:48The differences of affections and passions: 54:40Passions are always directed at people: 58:58Classification of passions: 1:12:371. Material passions: 1:22:352. Formal passions: 1:33:01- The passion for freedom: 1:33:35- The passions for honour, power and money: 2:08:25The purpose of affections and passions: 2:27:09Passions come about through the power of imagination: 2:47:24Kant is the apologist of sensuality: 3:06:25Thanks: 3:09:29Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpgAffections and passions Kant discusses mainly in his works on anthropology, so in his Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view: http://korpora.org/kant/aa07/230.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/234.html. (I could not find any free English translations online) But also his lectures on logic deal with art at times, that is with the difference between the aesthetical and the logical: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes241imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes242imma/page/n7/mode/2up (English translations exist, but unfortunately I couldn't find them for free on the internet.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

For a long time practical philosophy was considered the doctrine of the good life and of happiness. Morality was often considered a part of this or also a means to reach happiness. Kant's accomplishment lies in having strictly distinguished both. The proper or pure practical philosophy only deals with moral duty in his system, unconcerned with our personal adventage or happiness. Nevertheless Kant also in many places made remarks about what a good life consists of. And the cliché of Kant only preaching and himself living cold, joyless dutifulness is not true: Sensuality and our desires according to him should be governed by reason, but not supressed, rather they should get their due.Quote: 0:08The place of the doctrine of good life in the architectonic of Kant's system: 0:35A universally valid doctrine of happiness is not possible: 13:48Kant's remarks on happiness are less original than other parts of his thinking: 24:17Kant did not reject sensuality and pleasure in the name of morality: 28:13Morality and prudence mostly align: 57:33Kant stands for moral rigorism but not moral purism: 1:09:06Virtue is strength and courage and therefore not grumpy but cheerful: 1:25:40Kant himself enjoyed his life: 1:43:23Moral duty should be done for its own sake, not because it is adventagous to us: 2:01:34Thanks: 2:09:11Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpgOveriew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpgThe relationship of reason and sensuality, moral duty and prudent joy of life and his rejection of grumpy ethics and the virtue of monks Kant discusses most extensively in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant's position towards animals is often attacked but usually completely misunderstood. According to him we don't have duties towards animals but still duties in regards to animals. From the standpoint of right they are items, meaning they can be possessed and and used and have no rights just as they have no duties. Still we ought to treat them with care. Not for their but for our own sake: Because it would not befit our own human dignity to not behave like rational beings and not act in a purposeful manner. Kant's moral philosophy therefore is one that not only forbids treating animals disregardingly but even to treat lifeless objects disregardingly.Quote: 0:08Kant's position towards animals: 1:55The nature of animals: 10:41- The faculty of cognition of animals: 21:51- The feelings of animals: 45:17- The faculty of desiring of animals: 1:03:50- The souls of animals and their life after death: 1:13:09The criticism of Kant's position: 1:16:37Animals are items without rights: 1:34:54Kant rejects animal abuse: 1:54:19Kant is not anthropocentric but ratiocentric: 2:06:36We mustn't abuse animals because otherwise we become numb: 2:21:11We mustn't abuse animals out of reverence for ourselves: 2:26:39Reverence for ourselves indeed is the reason people treat animals regardingly, even if they aren't aware of it: 2:36:35Why people really reject Kant's moral philosophy in regards to animals: 2:52:52A person ought to not be possessed by the spirit of destruction: 3:00:01The duties in regards to animals are wide duties and left to our own discretion: 3:24:33Everything ought to be a matter of conscience to us: 3:32:57Thanks: 3:38:38Overview over the faculties of the mind according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/faculties-of-the-mind-and-critiques-according-to-Kant.jpgOveriew of sensuality according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sensuality-according-to-Kant.jpgThe moral relationship with animals and how we should treat them is a topic in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://debatewikiarchive.github.io/circuitdebater/file/view/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf as well as in the lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translation).Whoever is interested in Kant's own relationship with animals should read the descriptions of his life by his acquaintances, especially Ehregott Andreas Christoph Wasianski's Immanuel Kant in his final years of life: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb10064190?page=1 (I am not aware of any free English translation).The nature of animals in distinction from human nature Kant addresses in various places of his lectures on metaphysics: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0028kant_d7g2/mode/2up as well as his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of any free English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The state of nature is a war of all against all. Only public right can create perpetual peace. There must be laws which secure for each his own, and these laws must be binding and enforced. States right is supposed to create peace between individuals, the right of nations is supposed to bring peace between states. But for such a states right and right of nations to be able to be established there first needs to be a global cosmopolitan right: There mustn't be total war of all against all after all, rather every human being must have a universal right of visitation. For only if someone who does not belong to a legal community und is not protected through the laws governing it, has the opportunity to at least offer joining it, can a legal community ever come into being in the first place.Quote: 0:08Public right and cosmopolitanism: 1:45There must be a cosmopolitan right to hospitality: 10:44Refugees: 27:27Colonialism: 55:16The significance of cosmopolitan right in the face of totalitarianism: 1:16:39Thanks: 1:30:09Cosmopolitan right Kant discusses in his text On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdfWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Perpetual peace between states is possible if these enter into a federation of nations and submit to binding international law. For this to be possible two conditions should be met inside the states: There should be freedom of thought so that criticism and proposals for reaching perpetual peace are possible, and the sate should have a republican consitution so that wars are only possible with the approval of the people that has to wage them.Quote: 0:08Peace through right: 2:54There ought to be freedom of thought: 13:23The state ought to be a republic: 17:00Perpetual peace is possible, even if humans are evil: 45:24Thanks: 59:23The significance of the freedom of thought and of a republican constitution for peace Kant discusses in his essay On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htmWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Only one thing can guarantee perpetual peace: When the lawlessness between states is ended and internationally law which is binding for all is established and enforced by a federation of nations including all states. For such a federation possibly being established once, states should voluntarily follow a kind of international law and law of war even in the state of lawlessness: a law to conduct themselves in such a manner that an eventual joined entry into a federation of nations and a peaceful legal order remain possible. This means they should treat wars, when they are fighting them, as a necessary evil of the state of nature, but never engage in total war which aims at victory at any cost and at destroying the opponent, rather war should always be carried out in a way which leaves the possibility for eventual peace.Quote: 0:08How things are and how they ought to be in international law: 1:52States should work towards peace through their conduct: 9:47What is to be done immediately: 17:02- When peace is made all further claims are to be given up and all future reasons for resuming the same war are to be resolved: 18:08- No state shall meddle with the inner affairs of another state: 28:56- Wars are to be fought only for just reasons: 43:35- Wars are to be fought only by just means: 1:01:00What is to be done eventually: 1:43:21Why there must be justice even in a state of injustice and there shouldn't be any total wars: 2:01:26The maxim of publicity: 2:32:57Thanks: 2:47:53The Palestine Laboratory:https://youtu.be/1GvkFwpzDhI?si=buFGtwvlVU4IqT6jhttps://youtu.be/5pPQydBGwQY?si=0Fw0nKsuh_u7F8mpHow we can leave the state of nature between states and can work towards a federation of nations, Kant explains in his On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htmWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Public right has only one single task: To give to each his own and thereby secure perpetual peace. This doesn't mean merely a ceasefire but a state in which a new outbreak of war is impossible and the right is secured. For this the lawlessness between states has to be ended and a federation of nations which enforces international law has to be created.Quote: 0:08War is the greatest evil on earth: 0:51Peace is not ceasefire but justice: 18:16International law should not be established through a state of nations: 36:30International law should be established through a federation of nations: 44:54A federation of nations that secures peace is possible: 1:04:25Kant's examples and hope for the federation of nations: 1:14:58The modern equality delusion: 1:29:25The slow progress of justice: 2:07:05Our political task for the enforcement of international law: 2:23:51Thanks: 2:56:14On perpetual peace one may read above all Kant's text On Perpetual Peace: , also his essay On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf, additional remarks can be found in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf, his lectures on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy and the philosophy of right: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa19/ and on anthropology: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translations).The Iroquois Confederacy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4gU2Tsv6hYNoone in the public today is as inspired by the idea of international law and the ideal of a federation of nations as Francesca Albanese, whoever is enough of a cosmopolitan to care for the cause of peace therefore should listen to her, which is why I have created a playlist of speeches, interviews and conversations by and with Albanese: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5EWVWz1xR2GRbAee_YGTIdPWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Even if within the states there is a monopoly of power and rule of law, between different states and peoples there is still lawlessness and the right of the strong. This is the state of nature on the level of the right of nations and the state of nature is always a war of all against all. The thin facade of civilization breaks apart as soon as people leave behind their own society with its customs and laws and enter this lawless jungle. In the way they deal with other nations even or most of all the civilized nations turn out to be ruthless barbarians. And this barbarism in the end turns inward. To end the barbarism, to establish justice and thereby not just a temporary ceasefire but perpetual peace, that is the task of the right of nations or international law.Quote: 0:08Peace is not ceasefire but rule of law: 1:54What is just can be determined by the maxim of publicity: 23:19The lawless anarchy between states: 32:27The civilized nations are outwardly barbarians: 45:28The outer barbarism turns people barbarian inwardly too: 1:55:53The perpetual peace is possible through international law: 2:03:19Thanks: 2:09:19On war and its consequences and the barbarism that goes along with it Kant writes in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in various places of his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

A person ought to be a citizen of the world: To not just care for the constrained interests of his self, his class, his nation, to not just judge out of the narrowness of his limited perspective. Rather a person should care for all human matters, take an interest in the whole world as a citizen of that world and always also consider what is best for the world out of a cosmopolitan attitude. The common best for humanity however is perpetual peace and therefore universal justice. The world citizen therefore welcomes the progress of republicanism and international law, even where he isn't directly affected. Indirectly he still is: for the universal best necessarily is also what's best for the individual. Especially the Germans though have a special disposition and vocation to not follow the national delusion but to be citizens for the world according to Kant.Quote: 0:08Cosmopolitanism: 1:49Especially scholars and rulers should be world citizens: 23:50The philosopher is always a world citizen: 41:46The German national character: 55:25Thanks: 1:17:59Scattered remarks about the cosmopolitan attitude can be found specially in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation), this attitude however is alive in all of Kant's writings, especially those on the philosophy of right.Together with this lecture I'm publishing a cosmopolitan playlist with videos of interest for every person with a cosmopolitan attitude. As with my other playlists I will add to it now and then, when I come across fitting videos. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQ5EHjVpOe5GiX6N3DcxghQzOINnAjYAFWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Love for the fatherland should not be like the love for a beef steak from which everyone cuts off a slice for himself, Kant says. The true patriot takes his commonwealth not as loot but he serves the whole. This service however is not chimerical delusion only if it is a service of justice. The patriot fights for the rule of law and a durable constitution that preserves it.Quote: 0:08The Government ought to be patriotic: 1:40Patriotism is not nationalism: 16:35The patriot considers the state not his possession but himself a servant of the rule of law: 20:52Fascism and ausklärung (entwilightment): 32:49The unpatriotic mob: 46:24National delusion vs. patriotic service of the rule of law: 1:11:39Thanks: 1:29:28The patriotic way of thinking is described in the second part of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf. Further scattered remarks can be found in Kant's handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Improvements of the state towards more freedom and justice Kant wants to accomplish through step by step reform, which in turn is brought about through public criticism and suggestion of improvements. Where not even this is possible and censorship is in place, the only remaining option is to hope for better times and to act as a good and law-abiding citizen who at most engages in passive resistence when he is expected to do things that are in violation of the moral law. Active resistence and revolutions however are necessarily an injustice for they destroy the right itself before establishing a new one. If they nevertheless happen however, they should be taken as a cry of nature for freedom and we should make the best out of them. In this way Kant's relationship to revolutions was very nuanced. According to principles he rejected them and would never have become a revolutionary, wherever they took place however he welcomed them enthusiastically.Quote: 0:08What should a person do in a despotic state?: 0:48Quietly wait for better times: 10:40People are in favour of revolutions not because they are legitimate but because they are eudaimonists who don't care about right: 13:50Revolutions are always unjust: 24:05Revolutions destroy the civil state and throw people back into the state of nature: 59:16Revolutions hardly ever lead to the state becoming a republic: 1:18:54Why revolutions should not be opposed, despite being unjust: 1:35:06Defiance is legitimate, resistence is not: 1:46:40Kant's critique of revolutions is to be read as subtile endorsement of the French Revolution: 2:04:59Kant's own relationship with revolutions: 2:13:20When revolutions and resistence aren't unjust, without however being just: 2:24:04Thanks: 3:02:38The topic of revolution Kant discusses again and again in his works on the philosophy of right. For example in On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html (I am not aware of any English translations) and also in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf and his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations). It is recommended to also check out the respective passages in his lectures on moral philosophy on the question of how a person ought to behave under despotism: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).Hannah Arendt too remarked on the relationship between revolution and despotism insofar as both are based on the same eudaimonism: https://youtu.be/l1fyT8nAJOY?si=HfgeWHwoWX-y8pMt.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

No state has been fully republican in the sense of Kant so far. This begs the question how a despotic state may be made more republican. Kant did not support the path of revolution, which always is an injustice, but that of step by step reform. For this it is necessary that the philosophers in the world sense - i. e. the sages serving as lawgivers of reason and reflecting on the final purposes of humanity, while abstracting from everything particular and all self-interest - be heard by the rulers. And for this in turn it is only necessary that they have the right to speak their thoughts freely in public.Quote: 0:08How a despotic state is to be made more republican: 1:11The philosophers ought not to rule but to advise the ruler: 12:27- Kant's own nature did not strive for ruling: 23:32- Power corrupts the jugdment: 30:08There must be freedon of speech for the philosophers: 1:02:51Freedom of speech is not a purpose in itself: 1:33:52Darkening: 1:51:30Thanks: 2:19:48On the role of the philosopher in the state and the political meaning of so-called freedom of speech Kant writes in his text Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm. In addition you can also read the relevant reflections in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant distinguishes two forms of government: The despotic and the republican one. The form of government here is different from the form of state: Autocracy, aristocracy or democracy all can govern in a despotic or a republican manner. What matters for Kant is not who is the sovereign in the state, what matters is that the sovereign represents the citizens and gives laws which protect freedom and represent the common will, as well as that the sovereign isn't the regent at the same time, i. e. that the lawgiver and the executive power are separate from one another. The republic is a rule of law state which subjects people only to reason, despotism is an unjust state where they are dependent on the arbitrary whims of the ruler.Quote: 0:08Republic and despotism: 0:16The architectonic deduction of the forms of government: 23:191) In the republic all human beings are free: 42:47- A state that wants to make people happy is despotic: 55:332) In the republic all subjects are equal before the law: 1:13:23- The republican equality is equality of force through the law: 1:24:45- The lawgiver is above the law and therefore must be irreprehensible: 1:36:243) In the republic all independent citizens are fraternally united as lawgivers: 1:40:10- Right of suffrage: 2:20:10What makes a republic: 3:02:05Liberty, equality, fraternity: 3:04:33The republic according to the four titles of the table of categories: 3:17:11The form of government matters, not the form of rulership: 3:34:57The endurance of the republic ought to be guaranteed by the constitution: 3:43:49Thanks: 3:58:23Republicanism and its three principles Kant describes in his essays Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the both texts: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/153.html & https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html and also in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations). Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant supports the separation of the legislative, exective and judicative powers, already suggested before him by Montesquieu. However the legislative power to him is souvereign: Every subject of the state and also the two other powers are under the law which determines what is just and what is unjust. The lawgiver himself however cannot possibly be under the law, since it is only given by him. For that reason he must be irreprehensible and even like God's representative on earth and mustn't be able to commit an injustice, since he could not be held accountable for it. Kant wants to achieve this exactly through the separation of powers: The souvereign is to rule but not to govern the state. Quote: 0:08Separation of powers in Kant's thinking and its deduction from reason: 0:37The monopoly of power of the state: 14:35The lawgiver is the souvereign: 31:33The souvereignty of the legislative and the danger of despotism as a problem of the philosophy of right: 51:18Solution: The souvereign is to be religious: 54:56Solution: Strict separation of powers between legislative and executive: 1:03:03Thanks: 2:03:47On the separation of powers and the role of the overlord in the state Kant talks in the second section of On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf as well as in the preliminary works to the same text: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/125.html. To better understand this topic one should definitely also read his handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html and his lectures on the philosophy of right: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Important for Kant's thinking, though often overlooked, is his distinction between ruling and governing: of blind, arbitrary commanding of what is to happen and thoughtful guiding and conducting of how something happens. The governing to him is more important than the ruling. As the composer rules the orchestra and his notes are like a law to it, so on the other hand it is governed by the conductor and he can very much improve or diminish a piece through his conducting.Quote; 0:08Ruling and governing: 0:39Governing is more important and difficult than ruling: 32:13The wide applicability of the distinction between ruling and governing: 47:00Ruling and governing in the state: 1:02:46Kant's concepts as an enrichment of today's often primitive political thought: 1:15:33Thanks: 1:33:30The difference of ruling and governing Kant doesn't explicate in any text or chapter in detail, rather he mentions it again and again at various places in his texts on the philosophy of right or anthropology. One may read on it especially On Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm, the second section of the Conflict of Faculties: https://de.scribd.com/document/292309779/Kant-Immanuel-Conflict-of-the-Faculties-Abaris-1979, the Anthropology from a Prgmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html as well as the lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The criminal right is an important part of the doctrine of right. It's all the more unfortunate that in Kant's work it's utterly insufficient: He supports a punishment of avangement which is to reinstitute the justice broken by the crime. In this he loses sight of the proper task of right: To secure the freedom of men.Quote: 0:08Kant's criminal right is useless: 0:46Punishment should not be arbitrary but necessary: 12:54Punishment may also but never exclusively be pragmatic punishment: 16:33Critique of Kant's criminal right: 34:25- Kant doesn't apply his own principle consistently: 44:01- Kant wants to retain the dignity of the punished and the punisher but fails to do so: 50:09- Kant mixes up ethics and right: 1:07:54Thanks: 1:33:33Criminal right Kant discusses mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The object of right is the mine and yours, both the innate as well as the acquired property. In the state of nature however all acquired property is only provisional and there is no guarantee that others will respect the mine as mine. For that very reason the state is needed: Its task is to give to each his own, i. e. to guarantee everyone their property. This however requires that the state itself with its laws and constitution must persist and be souvereign. And for that reason that which is necessary for sustaining the whole must also be the property of the whole and must never be owned by an individual.Quote: 0:08The task of the state is the protection of property: 1:08The antietatism of the unaufkläred: 9:16The substance of the state mustn't be the property of individual citizens: 27:07The implications of Kant's doctrine of state for the ecological crisis of the present: 52:56Thanks: 1:10:00On the role of the state one may read Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf, the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/207.html and the handwritten estate on the philosophy of right: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/443.html (I am not aware of any English translations).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All action, according to Kant, follows either the principal of morality or that of happiness. This holds true also for political action and therefore politics either serves the realisation of right, as reason demands, or it serves the common wellfare. This exactly is what the conflict between the philosophical faculty and the faculty of law is about according to Kant. As far as he is concerned politics is allowed to be prudent and therefore think of what's beneficial, but only within the framework and not at the cost of right.Quote: 0:08The metaphysical state's right: 0:19Politics as exercisindoctrine of right: 19:21State's right and state's prudence: 26:46The conflict of faculties: 44:11The current ideology demands pragmatism and rejects any kind of idealism: 1:01:32What is presented to us as prudent in politics, often isn't at all: 1:15:20The selfish politics of the liberals is to blame for the rise of the right: 1:19:42Prudent politics has its place within the framework and in the service of the righteous one: 1:30:11Thanks: 1:42:12On the role of politics and its relation to right and prudence Kant talks again and again in various places of his moral and anthropological writings, especially in his essays On the common saying: That may be correct in theory but it is of no use for practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf and Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm and in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The object of right is the mine and yours, that is, in the case of innate rights, that which is mine by birth, or, in the case of acquired rights, that which became mine at some point. In the state of nature, when there is no state and no law, the principle of right is: neminem leadere, don't harm anyone, i. e. let everyone keep his own, and this is the principle of commutative justice. But here there is no agreement about what is mine, what is yours, wherefore the state of nature is a constant state of war. Perpetual peace can only come about through public right: A contract which bestows to each person his own as his own and guarantees it. This is a distributive justice which acts according to the principle: suum cuique tribue, give to each his own. Just therefore can only be whatever could be contained in such a social contract to which everyone could agree. And this can be determined through an experiment of reason, that is through the question whether it can stand publicity.Quote: 0:08Justice and therefore peace are only possible through public right: 0:37The state needs law, force and freedom: 9:18The conditions where at least one essential element of the state is missing: 16:09The analogy with ethics: 35:06Wild freedom and freedom under the law: 54:38Barbarism: 1:04:04Just laws are those to which everyone could have agreed in an original social contract: 1:30:26The maxim of publicity in right: 2:03:39The maxim of publicity in ethics: 2:20:57Thanks: 2:47:58The relation of freedom, law and force Kant discusses in his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html, his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 and his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ (I am not aware of any English translation).The Maxim of Publicity is discussed in his texts: On the Common Saying: That may be Correct in Theory but is of no Use in Practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf, Perpetual Peace: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/50922/50922-h/50922-h.htm as well as in his handwritten estate on anthropology: https://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translations).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In the state of nature, that is without common laws, men live in constant at least potential war with one another. In this state the mere presence of another person already constitutes a threat, more than that of a wild animal could ever be. For that reason it is a duty to go from the state of nature into a civil state, that is to errect a common law through a contract which gives to each his own and guarantees it. Through this public right creates a perpetual peace between people.Quote: 0:08The state of nature: 0:34The state of nature is a state of war, for which reason we must enter the civil state: 13:06Public right is supposed to bring justice and thereby perpetual peace: 26:53The social contract requires truthfulness: 37:27The three principles of Ulpian: 50:38Honeste vive (live honestly): 56:53Neminem leadere (harm no one) & suum cuique tribue (give to each his own): 1:06:15Kant's method of reading: 1:25:13The just war is a war in order to force under the right: 1:29:31Leaving the social contract is an injustice: 2:06:44Thanks: 2:47:18Ulpian's principles of right Kant discusses in various places of his lectures on moral philosophy: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma/page/n5/mode/2up | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/page/n5/mode/2up as well as of his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of an English translation of either). On public right and the transition into it Metaphysics of Morals talk: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. Looking into the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals is also helpful: https://korpora.org/kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

One of the most important problems the philosophy of right has to solve is that of original acquisition: How can an item not belonging to anybody become the rightful property of a certain person from whose use he may exclude everyone else? Kant answers this through his theory of the ground which is at the basis of his whole philosophy of right: Everyone has an original right to a piece of the earth. This theory is insufficient but still has merit.Quote: 0:08The problem of original acquisition: 0:44Every person has an innate outer right to the ground: 16:46All human beings share an original common ownership of the whole ground: 26:47All other property is to be derived from the ownership of that piece of ground on which it is originally apprehended: 40:59Everyone can rightfully own as much of the ground as he could defend in the state of nature: 48:58The ownership of the ground and the original acquisition require a state of rights: 1:01:31Kant as an anti-Malthus: 1:20:23Kant's theory makes huge inequalities in wealth impossible: 1:44:15Why Kant's solution to the problem of original acquisition is insufficient: 1:50:51The theory of original acquisition leads from private right to public right: 2:09:15Thanks: 2:10:17Original acquisition and the theory of the ground Kant deals with in the doctrine of rights in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. To fully understand them however it's helpful to also read the preliminary works to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Right is about the mine and yours, its principle is neminem leade, i. e. don't harm anyone, harmed however I get by anyone who doesn't respect what's mine. Now there are innate and acquired rights, depending on whether something is mine by birth like my body or becomes mine like some outer property. That what's mine from birth must be respected, lies analytically in the principle of right, whoever touches it necessarily harms me. He who touches something outside of me however does not necessarily harm me but rather only if it is thought of as connected with my choice, that is as being my intellectual property. Connections however we can think of in twelve manners according to Kant, which he describes in his table of categories. He therefore deduces from it a table of categories which claims to describe all possible manners of rightful ownership.Quote: 0:08The categories of right: 0:31The table of categories of rightful property explained: 36:50I) Mathematical categories: 37:351) Quantity: 37:522) Quality: 44:40II) Dynamical categories: 48:453) Relation: 49:33- Item right: 50:30- Personal right: 1:07:15- Personal right in the manner of an item: 1:18:114) Modality: 1:47:08The relationship between the categories of right: 1:50:01The schematism of acquisition: 2:00:31Kant's juridical idealism: 2:21:57Thanks: 2:25:54Categories of rightful property according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/categories-of-rightful-property-according-to-Kant.jpgThe three fields of private right - item right, personal right and personal right in the manner of an item - Kant deals with in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. Whoever wants to fully grasp the categories of right and the schematism of acquisition as such however should definitely study the preliminary work to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/ (I am not aware of any English translation).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Private right according to Kant demands restriction of everyone's choice as much as is necessary for the choice of everyone else to coexist with it. All right therefore is concerned with the preservation of freedom. And for that reason it is about what Kant calls the mine and yours: about property. Here Kant distinguishes innate and acquired rights, that is rights to that which is mine by birth and to that which is mine through acquisition. The innate human right is the right to one's own freedom. The proper task of the philosophy of right however is solving the question how a right can be acquired, that is how property is possible.Quote: 0:08Private right: 0:30Innate righhts: 14:44Acquired rights: 22:52Temporary acquistion through physical possession: 29:05Why there must be property: 36:59The unjustified critique of Kant's formalism: 51:38The parallelism between the philosophy of right and theoretical philosophy: 1:09:38The dialectic of right and its solution through juridical idealism: 1:14:22Property obliges: 1:46:21Conclusion: 2:04:11Thanks: 2:07:09Private right and juridical idealism Kant discusses in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. To add to this and to better understand this one should also read his preparatory work to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.korpora.org/Kant/aa23/207.html (I am not aware of any English translation). Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Moral philosophy is made up of two sciences according to Kant: Ethics and Right (or Law or Justice). Metaphysics of morals in general is the doctrine of duties, ethics and right therefore both deal with the duties of men. Right however is concerned only with those duties which come with a right for others to compell someone to fulfill them. However compulsion can only concern outer actions, not attitudes. While ethics demands the good will as the source of good deeds, right therefore cares only for the actions as such and doesn't ask whether a person is inwardly good or evil.Quote: 0:08The place of right in the architectonic of Kant's system: 1:01"Recht" could be translated as "right", "law" or "justice": 11:14The difference between right and ethics: 25:15Right is only concerned with narrow duties towards others: 37:48Ethics is concerned with the will, right only with choice: 57:33The different kinds of right/laws: 1:20:42Kant's insufficient separation of right and ethics and the problems arising from it: 1:45:20Thanks: 2:08:50Overiew over philosophy according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Philosophy-according-to-Kant.jpgOveriew over metaphysics according to Kant: https://jonathanivoloewer.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Metaphysics-according-to-Kant-scaled.jpgThe difference between Ethics and Right Kant explains in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdfWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All of morality hinges on conscientiousness. Whoever has no conscience can even seemingly accept the moral law, but break it at any time without admitting it to himself. Conscientiousness however for Kant is nothing else but true religiosity: Acting is if one had to answer in front of an all-seeing, holy God. And therefore only he acts conscientiously who is so certain of not doing an injustice that he would be willing to bet his eternal felicity on it.Quote: 0:08There is a duty to constantly examine one's morality: 1:33What conscience is: 9:42Rational man judges the sensual man who is capable of reason: 13:53Conscientiousness: 26:12Moral probabilism is without conscience: 34:57The experiment of the bet: 47:49Most people are completely without conscience: 55:04The consciencious person must reject consequentialism: 1:49:06Conscientiousness is religion: 1:53:11Conscientiousness requires truthfulness: 2:01:10The experiment of the bet can also serve to find out the degree of our theoretical conviction: 2:04:22The philosopher must be conscientious and ruled by love for truth: 2:37:25Thanks: 2:41:39A short explanation of conscience can be found in the Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf On top of that I recommend reading Kant's remarks in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophhy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant is famous for completely rejecting lying. Often he is criticized for not even allowing emergency lies to save a human life. But the criticism tells more about the critics - about their superficial understanding of Kant and about their own lack of morality - than about him. A morality which doesn't have the ommandment of truthfulness as its fundament is no morality.Quote: 0:08There is a commandment to be truthful in Kant's philosophy: 1:10Kant demands neither openess nor truth nor is he pedantic: 10:05The prohibition of lying is a prohibition of consequentialism: 28:57What kind of duty the duty of truthfulness is: 44:34- It is a duty of right: 45:52- It is a duty towards oneself: 1:07:51The prohibition of lying is rejected because people don't care about morality at all and they don't ask whether an action is good or evil but only what its use is: 1:25:14Without lies people could hardly be evil: 1:50:18The lie is the radical evil in the human being: 2:10:13Sincerity is the only humanly possible moral perfection: 2:30:50The truthfulness is also a condition of conscientiousness and the social contract: 2:34:21Thanks: 2:39:50Why one shouldn't lie under any circumstances, Kant discusses in his essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Love of Humanity: https://korpora.org/kant/aa08/423.html. For a deeper understanding it is recommended however to also study the scattered remarks in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: https://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up zu studieren (I could not find any free English translations online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

In morality other people should not be taken as a model, rather one should orient oneself directly on the moral law itself. Still the good example is important. From a good person we might not learn how we should act, but we learn that it is possible to act the way we ought to.Quote: 0:08The yardstick of morality should be the law itself, not other people: 1:30The good person serves as an example of the possibility of fulfilling the moral law: 17:15The role of Jesus in Kant's thought: 27:46One should avoid association with bad people: 44:36One should be an example of morality to others: 55:25One should put the veil of the love for humanity over the failings and shortcomings of people: 1:01:38One shouldn't try to find bad things even in the good person: 1:24:32Arrogance and hopelessness as the two cliffs of morality and rigorism and religion as their remedies: 1:35:30The emotional plague: 1:40:52Thanks: 1:59:53On the role of yardstick and example in morality Kant talks again and again in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I could not find any free English translations online.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant distinguishes four kinds of moral duties: The duties to have reverence for the rights of other humans and for humanity in oneself, and the duties to further the purposes of other humans and those of humanity in oneself. To him morality is not about preventing suffering and creating happiness, as it is for others, but about freedom: The moral duty is about preserving and increasing freedom.Quote: 0:08The four kinds of duties and the golden role: 1:17The duties of right towards oneself: 19:04The duties of virtue towards oneself: 51:41The duties of right towards others: 1:27:41The duties of virtue towards others: 1:32:46Conclusion: 1:52:24The moral relation between God and men: 1:54:16Thanks: 2:01:31Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

All moral duties, be they duties towards other people or towards onself, can be divided into duties in the narrow and in the wider sense according to Kant. The former are duties of reverence for rights, the others are duties of active love for one's neighbour and are about the promotion of purposes.Quote: 0:08Narrow and wide duties: 0:53In case of conflict the narrow duties always have to be fulfilled first: 13:15The distinction of narrow and wide duties according to the categorical imperative: 28:30Duties of right and duties of love: 48:58Reverence, love and humanity: 54:47The love of one's neighbour that we are morally obliged to can only be love of benevolence, not love of complacence: 1:07:23Obligation and generosity: 1:37:06Generosity should be taken, if possible, as if one was only doing one's obligation: 2:13:33Thanks: 2:33:11Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The moral law doesn't just oblige us in regards to our fellow human beings but also in regards to ourselves, specifically in regards to the humanity in us, of which we ought to act worthy. And these duties make up the most important part of morality for Kant. He who doesn't revere and honour himself cannot revere and honour humanity in others either.Quote: 0:08The duties towards oneself: 0:11The duties towards oneself according to the table of categories: 24:40Duties towards oneself are a very untimely thought nowadays: 50:49Why our age doesn't accept duties towards oneself: 56:06Duties towards oneself are duties towards one's humanity: 1:17:22Duties towards oneself are duties of reverence for one's own human dignity: 1:28:51Duties towards oneself are duties of preserving and increasing one's own freedom: 1:42:31Lots of things that many don't regard as moral questions or only as questions of duties towards others, actually belongs to the duties towards oneself: 1:54:45Most have some, but not enough sense for their own dignity: 2:09:40Reverence for oneself and reverence for others are necessarily connected: 2:32:16A life of dignity is also a life of felicity: 2:49:11Thanks: 3:14:08Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

One part of the moral duties is made up of duties we have towards other human beings - towards humans, not animals or spirits or other beings - according to Kant; they aren't duties to avoid making others suffer or to bring them happiness, but rather they are duties of revering and increasing people's freedom. Quote: 0:08The deduction of the specific duties from the moral law in Kant's thinking: 1:25The division of the moral duties: 19:05We have moral duties only towards humans: 20:02Which duties we have towards others: 35:30Duties towards others are not about their happiness but their freedom: 39:48We have a duty to sustain ourselves through our own, useful work, instead of being parasites: 54:04We have a duty to restrict the use of the world's goods, so that others can also make use of them: 1:10:25Thanks: 1:56:07Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Every rational being carries within itself the ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity, the representation of a perfectly holy human being. This ideal we ought to strive for, against it do we ought to meassure ourselves. In infinity no one may ever reach this ideal, but this, according to Kant, mustn't be an argument for discarding the ideal itself and for not striving to conform to it.Quote: 0:08Moral rigorism: 0:25The ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity: 2:34The four ideals of ancient pratical philosophy: 12:13The ideal of holiness humbles us: 29:48The ideal of holines serves as a model of creation and of judgment: 48:07The intelligible character of the human being is black or white, the empirical character can be grey: 1:14:31The good will shows itself not as a good but as a constantly improving empirical character: 1:29:45Our mode of thinking ought to and can conform with the ideal of holines, even if the mode of sense does not: 1:49:23Thanks: 1:54:48Kant speaks of the various ideals of practical philosophy in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/. He also deals with them in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. (I am not aware of any English translations.)Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant is often attacked for his moral rigorism. His morality, you often hear, is too strict, it leaves too little freedom, no human being can be good enough for this moralty and it isn't fit for practice. Those accusations ar eoften dishonest however, the critics of Kant may pretend to not be able to follow his morality, the truth however is that they simply don't want to follow it. His morality seems to strict to them because it doesn't let them stay immoral.Quote: 0:08In morality there are only the positions of latitudinarism and rigorism: 0:50Kant's moral rigorism is often criticized: 8:57One should overcome the instinctive and timely aversion to rigorism and consider the arguments in support of it: 21:52One should reflect critically what issue one really takes with rigorism: 31:15The critics of Kant's morality simply don't want to be moral but only do whatever benefits them: 43:11The aufkläred thinking of the philosopher abstracts vom the sensual and contingent and grasps the law behind it: 1:21:02Every person has to either live according to the maxim that the right must be sacrificed for the world or that the world must be sacrificed for the right: 1:26:12Rigorism makes righteousness humble and prevents self-rightesousness: 1:32:30One ought not to declare the good to be impossible on the grounds of an experience which only exists because one has done evil: 1:44:42Experience should not distort the metaphysics of morals, but it is important for moral anthropology: 2:18:22Ideas ought to be practical and whoever drains them of their power through sophistry is responsible for the evil in the world: 2:22:53Thanks: 2:31:45On rigorism and latitudinarism Kant talks several times in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations). He also deals with the criticism of rigorism in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdfWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Evil for Kant is more than just a lack of goodness. It cannot be explained by the sensual drives in a person simply being stronger than reason, he who’d rather follow them than the moral law must already have decided to allow them more influence on his actions than the thought of duty. The propensity for this, which every person, even the virtuous and wise one, bears, Kant calls the radical evil in human nature.Quote: 0:08Evil: 1:14Humans aren’t evil out of an evil will: 9:10Humans aren’t evil because of being overpowered by their sensuality: 24:57The radical evil in the human being: 41:40Everyone has a propensity, even though not necessarily an appetite or inclination, for evil: 1:10:09Man is neither good nor evil by nature, but not a moral being at all, but he has a propensity for evil and a predisposition for good: 1:33:00The three types of radical evil: 1:44:27Deceit as the root of evil: 1:54:19Because of the propensity for evil man can only be good through virtue: 2:27:53Thanks: 2:49:56On radical evil Kant talks mainly in the first main part of his Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/religion/religion-within-reason.htm. For fully understanding it however it’s strongly advised to also read his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and especially on the philosophy of religion: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/615.html (I am not aware of any free English translations online). Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Is morality based on rational insight as rationalism teaches or on a moral feeling as moral empiricists claim? Kant is a rationalist: According to him it is reason which gives itself a law and through which we recognize what our moral obligation is and what is morally forbidden. But in spite of that the moral feeling, that is the feeling of reverence, plays a central role in his moral philosophy: Because only through reverence which we feel for the law and our own free, autonomous nature as rational beings are we driven to actually do what we recognized as being moral.Quote: 0:08It's not enough for choice to pick actions that are in accordance with the law, it also must pick them for the right reason: 0:41Choice makes its choice based on feelings that function as driving springs: 8:48The moral sense theory: 23:21The moral feeling is not the yardstick but the driving spring of morality: 27:55There is a moral feeling, but no moral sense: 1:02:31The sentiment as a kind of moral sense: 1:08:47Kant's sympathetic synthesis of moral rationalism and empiricism: 1:21:55Pathological and practical feeling: 1:26:37Evil people don't know the practical feeling and think it's a pathological one: 1:48:44The moral feeling is sensual in its quality but supersensual in its origin: 1:54:36How the feeling of reverence comes about: 2:04:29Example: 2:30:56The role of the feeling of reverence in morality: 2:40:44Kant's inconsistency: 2:47:53Reverence for people is actually reverence for the moral law: 2:52:49Thanks: 2:54:49Most extensively Kant writes on the feeling of reverence and especially its origin in the main piece on the driving springs of practical reason in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant shows that morality is about the good will. To be sure, will is more than intention and from a truly good will there will always come forth certain actions, but morality is not about calculating the assumed best consequences and depending one's actions on the expected results. This consequentialism rather is a main obstacle of morality.Quote: 0:08Kant's moral philosophy rejects all consequentialism: 0:21Consequentialism thought to its logical conclusion is absurd and totalitarian: 7:51In politics injustice is always justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that justice would bring catastrophe: 20:20There are no small or petty offenses in morality: 34:02Many evil actions are justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that nothing would get better if they weren't done: 40:13Many give up because of consequentialism and become pessimistic because there are no good results: 1:01:28We can't possibly predict the consequences of our actions with certainty: 1:17:20If good actions in the present will bring bad consequences in the future, that usually is only because in the past people already acted in a consequentialist manner: 1:38:33There are no good consequences in the sensual world anyways, true morality therefore requires transcendental idealism: 1:52:20Thanks: 2:02:40Kant's whole moral philosophy is directed against consequentialism, without a specific text being dedicated to this one topic in particular. For an easy introduction one can read Kant's short essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy (I could not find a free translation online).Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Actions as such cannot be good, they can have legality, i. e. be in accordance with the moral law, but actual morality lies in the attitude from which it stemss: in the good will.Quote: 0:08Legality of action and morality of will: 0:21Spirit and letter: 29:34Aufklärung liberates from being let by sensuality: 36:54Good will is more than good intention: 49:12Morally a person can be considered as if he actually had done and accomplished whatever he truly wants: 58:36Character, not the mode of sense, makes a person good: 1:13:47One ought not to prematurely consider oneself to be better than others or past people: 1:20:32The degree of someone's Aufklärung shows in areas where what's right and good isn't generally accepted yet: 1:25:28Often it is only coincidence who is on which side: 1:49:18Many would be capable even of great evil under the right circumstances: 1:59:04Original sin: 2:11:49Most good in the world is more due to conincidence than to good will, but that doesn't mean that coincidence excuses evil: 2:29:55We can judge the legality of actions, but not the morality of will: 2:40:37Even one's own good will is uncertain: 2:55:37Thanks: 3:10:31The significance of good will and the difference between legality and morality can be studied especially in the Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals as well as the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason. Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

It’s not a person’s mode of sense – his personality insofar as he was born with it, his nature and his heart – which has value but rather his mode of thinking – his personality insofar as he himself created it, his character. It is the consistent following of maxims: He who has character is reliable and in unity with himself. And only such a person is a true human being, deserving of the name of a rational being, instead of being a slave to his whims.Quote: 0:00Mode of sense and mode of thinking: 2:41Character: 18:32Only a person of character is free: 37:56Character bestows dignity and should be valued: 47:00A person of character isn’t pedantic because of it: 1:12:58Fake character: 1:22:02Evil character: 1:36:51The moral person acts out of duty which is not the same as blind obedience: 1:55:16The best have character and do their duty, the judgments of others don’t have to be heard: 2:09:07For moralisation you first should create a character as such: 2:19:54How to form a character: 2:34:23Kant’s midlife crisis and formation of his character: 2:46:23Thanks: 3:03:13About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of English translations to any of thse) as well as his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

According to Kant we mean three different things when calling someone a good person, depending on the context and situation: We can call someone that because he has a good nature, a good heart or a good character. Only the last of those is truly morally good. Nature and heart together form the mode of sense of a person and this can make one more easy or hard to be around for others, but is neither morally good nor evil.Quote: 0:08Whether a person is good, can not be determined solely outwardly by his actions: 2:10Good-naturedness: 6:49Good-heartedness: 20:33Kant's rejection of the soft-minded morality of compassion: 35:46Compassion can easily lead to mere inactive lamenting: 47:02Compassion can easily make one self-righteous: 52:00Compassion can easily be outweighted by other feelings: 1:05:33Compassion is fickle: 1:12:03Compassion makes one easy to manipulate: 1:33:23The mode of the sense and the mode of thinking: 1:45:40Example of the worthlessness of leftist humanism and of the limits of empathy: 1:58:20Thanks: 2:18:10About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0.Omer Bartov: As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartovWhoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The human being is a citizen of two worlds according to Kant: Not only a part of nature but also a member in a supersensual kingdom of purposes together with all other rational beings. And while in nature he is subjected to a law from outside of him, morality commands to regard oneself in the kingdom of purposes as if one were to give to it a law through one's own will.Quote: 0:08The categorical imperative: 0:44Kingdom: 6:15The kingdom of nature: 10:47The kingdom of purposes: 13:44The nihilistic rejection of the kingdom of purposes: 25:30The third formula of the categorical imperative: 35:53Only morality brings harmony into the purposes of rational beings: 44:56The type of the moral law: 57:24The role of purposiveness in Kant's system: 1:00:59Morality sets truly free: 1:10:46Man is a citizen of two worlds: 1:13:53The kingdom of grace: 1:24:25Kant tries to save humans from the cliffs of empiricism and enthusiasm: 1:35:37Kant's reception of Swedenborg: 1:47:44Thanks: 1:56:52Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Whatever can serve as a means for a purpose has a price, i. e. a value which can be compensated. Rational and autonomous beings however, since they are the ones who can give purposes and without whom no purposes and therefore no values could be, have dignity, i. e. a value in themselves. Reverence for human dignity, that is for the autonomy of humanity, is the whole morality. To have shown and proven this is Kant's great accomplishment.Quote: 0:08The categorical imperative according to the 1st formula: 1:14Means and purpose in itself, price and dignity: 6:04Atheism is disbelieve in the purpose in itself: 34:17The categorical imperative according to the 2nd formula: 50:17Humans may be used as means, as long as there is reverence for their freedom at the same time: 1:01:50Morality is conditioned on transcendental idealism: 1:22:58The second wording of the categorical imperative prevents many possible misunderstandings of the first one: 1:28:25The inconsistent and anti-human utilitarianism: 1:33:40The unaufkläred person is led by his sensual impressions, the aufkläred one thinks according to principles: 1:51:47Human dignity in justice and law: 2:01:02Human dignity in international law and crimes against humanity: 2:03:43Reverence is owed to humanity, not to the human: 2:18:05Morality is reverence for humanity, not pity with the creature and its sensitivities: 2:37:04Humans are not equal, but the humanity in all of them is: 2:45:51Thanks: 3:04:07The categorical imperative is at the center of Kant's writings on moral philosophy. Its three formulas can be found and are explained in the Groundworks to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/kant1785.pdf. The categorical imperative as well as the type of the moral law are also described in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://www.bard.edu/library/arendt/pdfs/bc_Arendt_Kant_CritiquePracticalReason.pdf. I reccomend also reading Kant's handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ (I am not aware of any English translation) along with those two texts, which includes many reflections on the categorical imperative as well as various wordings of it.Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewerhttps://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77UThumbnail: www.hotpot.ai