what about sacrifice, does this action voilate Kant morality conception ? If I were spider man (any other kind of hero), I have to sacrifice myself for saving millions of lives, Does this action have moral worthy ? it of course does, in my perspective, but , also, in Kant morality conception, it still uses persons as a means, so, even the person is myself, anyone can give me an answer for that. thanks.
I would be very interested what would Kant do if he was the driver of that Damned trolley Car. According to his conception of morality , you should not use persons as means.So, in Trolley car wreck,if you let one person die, simply , just use that person as means. so , now , I am pretty convinced, if I were the driver, I would just crash 5 people rather than kill 1 spear 5. am I crazy after all. Anyone can give me an answer, please.
I think Kant's philosophy is just, and the best method of creating a moral society. However, interestingly I think there are many people who are empathetic, sympathetic, and enjoy being good, and making others lives better, such as myself, who actually have no necessary "reverence" for good actions, but just gain pleasure from the happiness, pleasure, and success of people in general, and people around them. I am thus made amoral by this definition with no hope of morality.
@Daharen That is a common misunderstanding of Kant's philosophy. What it really does is make your actions analogous to morality, not immoral. Friedrich Schiller elaborated on this in his work "On Grace and Dignity". If you have the time (you already have the interest, as it seems), it's an interesting and rewarding piece to read.
@Daharen it is a very good theory, I think in 2 type of societies, have absolutly no moral law for whatsoever, 1 is perfect " Moral " society, 2 is opposite, deadly evil society. in the "Moral" society, if there were a conception of moral formed, then, that would undermine society, because, if the conception of moral exist, then , people would become hypocrite, people want to be moral and then conforming to the law. also, in 2 society, there won't be a moral law, because, it won't be exsisted.
@Daharen also, in my perspective, many many religions just like hypocrites(sorry for people if this makes you guys feel offensive), because, religions tend to use hypthetical imperatives as the reason, i.e. I don't want to go to hell, then, I behave myself, sounds persuasive ?
PureEast: Of course you're right. The moral thing to do is to give the customer the right change. My point was different. It was that each person's conception of "morality" is influenced by motives he has no idea he holds. Instances of ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily benefit the people in charge; they do it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
Not so much that, it proves that we all have a capacity to REJECT rational thought if it's taught us or we adopt such a way ourselves.
I suppose that you, like myself, are tempted to regard blind unquestioning animal-minded creationists as sub-human?
That it's a wanton abandonment of our right to free thought and a waste of human grey matter and potential, I'm tempted to feel this way, yet... even these reprehensible bigoted worms of humanity are still human
in the big picture, we're only an infinitesimally bit closer to finding the truth than they are, but the reason they irk me so is that they are a part of what would stop us moving forward and really developing as a species. They represent the worst of the past and are actively trying to drag us back to it. The fact that there's a universe of things to explore and to see and to deduce and to know means nothing to them. They'd want me to live in their little world
Man, is this all pre-Freudian. Not specifically pre-psychoanalysis, but just that Kant along with everyone else believed in "reason" as a conscious thing. We know why we do something. That was before the general acceptance of the unconscious, where are hidden motives lie. I could cheat that shop customer because it was a moral thing to teach him the lesson of counting his change.
@RMax304823 By not making the customer aware of the lesson I do not think you would be treating the customer with Kantian respect. You are using them as a means to teach the lesson just like you would use a blackboard and chalk. To treat the customer with respect would be to just give them the right change in the first place and because it is the right thing to do. I do think you could remind them that it is a good idea to count change because even clerks do not always get it right.
what is your name....Judith...everyone else had a crazy name..not expecting that one. Oh and Tim was all happy about his question then....Wrong lol..oh ya spider-man and waldo. you keep distracting me
it doesn't sound that convincing and i wasn't really convinced from the response at the end to the last guy's question... b/c we are still using people as means... which goes against what Kant believed in..
and also.. the prof talks about people who murder... not all of them do it for a purpose... some of them are just mentally insane- maybe we can treat them as a means and not ends in themselves...
doesn't really seem to tell me why I should be just for the sake of it
@leomnyc It's essentially a free college level philosophy course, and so far (I've watched six episodes) it seems a fair exploration of various political philosophies. Perhaps there may be some marketing value for Harvard, but overall it seems a good public service to me. There are sponsors and publicity and whatnot, but can you really knock free education? (Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of exclusive, "prestigious" universities that cost a fortune to attend, but this is something good.)
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
I cant believe a professor from Harvard is talking about Kant. He was completly againt the idea that the ends justify the means. Look it up and cross reference it with the powers that may be in washington who graduated from Harvard. Maybe that course should have been taught back when they were in school.
Wouldn't the spelling bee champ "feel like slime" because he understands the morals of his action and therefore chooses solely based on moral principal?
Why do people think Kant's maxim differs from the laws of nature? Tigers were give long teeth and claws by nature and using them is natural. Human's are given the ability to reason autonomously so using reason is no less natural than a tiger killing a deer or a deer ripping a plant to pieces for its own satisfaction.
I was actually thinking of the shopkeeper that if he did the right thing (ie not short changing the customer) without even the thought that he could've done it - then that would show that the shopkeeper was truly virtuous. He wasn't doing what was right for his buisness, or for his reputation, but just because it was a natural outflow of him as a person fullstop.
A view of incarceration being protection of society as apposed to punishment aside, should an attempted suicide then be treated as equal in offence to an attempted murder in Kant's view?
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Justice demands we allow homosexuals to marry the same as heterosexuals. Morally, you should be voting against any ban on gay marriage because that is purposely & willfully thwarting & depriving other human beings from their natural end & what is due to them. All of us are entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Taking away the possibility of another to love & commit in the same way as yourself is essentially a moral evil. Stand up for true human justice so we all may know PEACE.
This is brilliant stuff. So pleased it's available on YouTube. This particular lecture on Kant is my favourite one yet.
But seriously - why *is* Spider-Man there? Although, he is one of the more archetypal philosophical superheroes - with great power comes great responsibility and all that.
I like the possible Freudian slip when if u start listening from around 5:30 he talks about Kant's notion of acting on the desires or the avoidance of pain = the slaves of our appetites and impulses... carry on listening until when @ 7:03 he says something interesting
Does he say message or massage?
And if it is a massage then what is he referring to? ;0
This professor makes me sad this is the closest I'll ever come to going to Harvard. Just being exposed to the philosophical underpinnings of modern political thought is exhilarating.. I've already got some great arguments against Libertarians and I'm anxious to see what else I'll learn. I've tried to read Kant and its very tedious. This is a great summary. I really should have been a lawyer.....
@f1msch I know what you mean. But in essence, I think Kant supports the idea of human beings as intrinsically worthy of respect, because they are rational beings. This means that any improper use of a human being - using them, hurting them, killing them - is intrinsically irrational, and intrinsically immoral. He also seems to be saying there is an absolute moral law to which we should all strive. It's empirical, it's real, and it's not up for grabs.
I agree with most Kantian principles, except that it makes the wrongful assumption that we all have the capacity of reason, which is obviously erroneous. Also, I would go further and propose the idea that true morality should have no motive at all, not even duty. We should just do what is "natural" and effortless without even having to think about it. Utopia is not far behind now, is it?
@zabelicious //We should just do what is "natural" and effortless without even having to think about it.// What? A lot of things considered immoral today comes "natural" to many people. Do not make the classic naturalistic fallacy. Morality is a serious and difficult issue that has to be reasoned and measured.
@ai1888 There is nothing fallacious about nature. In fact, you have no idea what I am talking about. Perhaps I am being too vague. When I say we should do what comes natural, I mean it in a cognitive sense. Sort of like what an animal would do. You will have to agree that so called lower animal, do not know what is right or wrong, they have no sense of morality, therefore they cannot be wrong because they act out of their natural instinct. No enough room to discuss much here!
@zabelicious ummm, I don't think you know what a naturalistic fallacy means. You are not making the is-ought distinction. If, by cognitive sense, you mean our natural tendency to feel empathy, then yeah, ofcourse we need to excercise that more. Empathy is one thing that sets us apart from other animals (most). Ofcourse the act of any animal lacking a moral compass cannot be termed wrong, that is absurd. When did you hear me say otherwise?
@ai1888 Now this naturalistic fallacy concept is kind of outdated because there is nothing that genetically predispose humans to behave in any particular way. New research have amply demonstrated that it is environment as well as genetics that dictates our tendencies. When there are dilemmas, to fulfill one need rather then another, humans have much more then animals to ponder. Also, why do you talk about animal suffering in the context of morality? what does that have to do with any of this?
@zabelicious You still don't understand the naturalistic fallacy. Please look it up. There is nothing that genetically predisposes humans? You are factually wrong on this, on so many levels. I have to insist on suffering because I disagree with Kant's reasoning that rationality is the only principle to base morality, and his complete disregard for animal rights.
@ai1888 Animals have no rights, it's a man-made concept that exists only because of the inability of certain individuals (usually greedy, insecure, fearful, mental incompetency, etc) to make the "right" decision, as define by Kant (rising above self-interest, inclination and just act out of a sense of duty) Animals kill each other, so what? Humans torturing animals is wrong. Check out The Genetics Myth - clip from Zeitgeist
The more I listen the more I tend to equate utilitarianism with a positive explanation (how things actually are) for why people behave the way they do (while also being a justification for their action), while Kantianism with a normative explanation (the way something should be). Obviously, as stated before, utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism is normative because they believe people should act to benefit the greatest number the greatest amount.
Then focus on immoral, and consider that we can't make everyone better than average. So bettering yourself to earn more than average, being smarter than average (and incidentally going to Harvard) is immoral. If a society has 51 males and 49 females, monogamy would be immoral. If a society of 100 people has 1 blind man, watching a movie by any of the other 99 is immoral.
Is possibility of being a universal law a sufficient or necessary condition? Cos if sufficient, then everyone can blink their eyes without making blinking some kind of social problem or self-contradicting thing. That'd be absurd to say it's moral to blink. If necessary but not sufficient, then question is, what conditions make it sufficient to be moral? Perhaps moral is just anything that's not immoral. That'd be easy using his litmus test of universality, and blinking would be moral.
Kant is saying that your motive must be good before your actions are good? And good is when it's an end in itself? Then what's "good"? It's just...good is good. Good isn't something done to make people happy, not the elevated social norms in a society, not anything...cos that'd make it a mean to something. Although good could accidentally be a means to something, isn't Kant making good just simply undefined and assumed? But what the heck is that?
I disagree with Kant's premise that Human's capacity to reason is the moral supreme principle. What about animals and birds? I think instead of asking "can they reason?" we should ask "Can they suffer?"
@ai1888 you're mixing your apples with your oranges... Animals behavior is not driven by any moral principles, it is driven by their instinctual need for survival (e.g. sexual reproduction, food, comfort) and they are willing to do anything to get that. Do you eat meat or fish? Do you wear fur or leather or contribute to the economy that destroys forests, oceans or any eco-systems? We all suffer from time to time, it's called life!
@zabelicious You are overestimating the animal's instinctual driving force without any basis. Chimpanzees have been observed to be very social , and even altruistic. But that is not even the point I am making. Kant suggests that the reason we have to be moral to a fellow human being is because that fellow human being is a rational person, and we have to respect that. That is his moral supreme principle, which begs the question. Should we not respect animals, solely because they are not rational?
@ai1888 Maybe you should contemplate taking the human Behavior Biology lecture series of Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford. He is a well known authority on primate behavior and yes he did point out that some rudimentary sense of "moral" exists in some primate species, after all humans are a more evolved kind of primate (mostly due to the size of frontal cortex and the use of language) and it is fair to compare them to us, say as opposed to dogs, zebras or salmons. This is not about respect!
@zabelicious I have a fairly decent understanding of human and animal behavior. Again, you are digressing. I am not talking about the moral capacities of animals. I am simply talking about their capacity to suffer.
If Kant, answer that way to the challege of the murderer at the door he was an hypocrite. I think the cartegorical imperative demands that you tell the truth but it would also demand the defense of yur friend. So Kant´s answer should be "Yes he is here but you will not come in" Even if it meant that the murderer kills you and your friend in the end.
I would've thought Spiderman would've been knowledgeable about the subject and in no need of the course....but since he is there, it's comforting to see that he obviously cares enough to give himself the best opportunity to understand it fully, and is therefore truly autonomous.
Kant stated that all human life must be respected as an end in and onto itself, and not as a means to selfish desires. Using this logic, one would be capable to assume that Kant does not endorse any form of violent retaliation that may result in the death of another person (i.e. Self Defense), as you are essentially utilizing that person as a means to justify your own self interest to preserve yourself as an end.
I wish he spoke faster, I think he thinks he's helping our minds keep up with him, and to understand him, but it doesn't allow for the lecture to flow naturally, and seem cohesive.
so even if you do things because of the right reasons you still don't have real freedom ? you're just acting on your desire to be good ?
black guy that asks the question at 22:30 is one insightful mofo !
also what I get from Kant so far is the best counterpoint to the notion that acting in your self interest is the only logical choice (I think this is what Ayn Rand says ?)
I wish I could have been there and asked prof. Sandel, but maybe one of you can give me a thought provoking answer. Though Kant talks about *reason* being our ticket to acting freely, isn't *reason* the most mechanical, rigid and non-free capacity we have? Systematical thought; the breaking down of concepts into linguistical nodes small enough for us to process in an algorithm of comparison and step-by-step evaluation; a very bound and systematical process, almost the opposite of imagination?
@Bobstew68 I think Kant would say that in reason we must put aside all other inclinations and emotional baggage. But I see your problem I think. Would logically following it to a common moral ground shared between all human beings not be a law itself that would govern us despite our reason? Or is our reason always tainted by upbringing etc. and therefore truly always intrinsically personal, and thus not free from emotional inclinations and cannot always be followed to a common moral ground?
hahaha in your case no one should be treated with dignity...you have made it impossible for us rational beings to earn & it therefore loses it's meaning.
if we aren't animals & yet we are rational...would that make us worthy of dignity?
@Abgef Kant doesn't leave moral duties open to interpretation.
He said somethibg along the lines of 'whereby a maxim can be willed to become a universal law' - then, that is what a moral duty is. In other words, if an action can be undertaken by EVERYONE the world over, it would then become a moral law or duty. i.e; honesty - yes. stealing - no.
Could each and every person be honest? Yes. Conversely, everyone in the world steal?
In other words, if an action can be undertaken by EVERYONE the world over, it would then become a moral law or duty. i.e; honesty - yes. stealing - no.
but then he leaves it to popularity...if racism is popular enough & can indeed be taken the world over...it would be morally correct.
what about the ones that majority cannot agree upon? where is the moral law there?
is it even morally correct to leave the objectivity of moral laws to subjective popularity?
@Abgef Heh heh!! You're getting there! Yes, an action would have to be able to be undertaken by EVERYONE for it to become a moral duty or law. Popularity, no. I think that would veer more toward utilitarianism than Categorical Imperative.
Something CANNOT become a moral law if you can't think that EVERYONE could adopt it - the majority have nothing to do with it. 99% people in the world thought it ok to torture animals, that .1 remaining thought it wrong - it cannot be a moral law (under Kant)
@Abgef Hadn't enough characters to finish! Nothing to do with popularity. Moral duty has to be undertaken by everyone. Racism is a no go because there would be some people that are on the receiving end, hence not universal. Doesn't matter if a majority cannot agree, has to be everyone. With Kant, there's NO subjectivity - something is universally morally correct or not.
Categorical Imperative - you can't be influenced by ANYTHING! Except on rationality, free will and autonomy - no majority....
@Abgef I think you missed the part about the "categorical imperative". The categorical imperative answers your questions. (Or perhaps the cat imper is discussed in the next episode? I forget. In any case, that is your answer.
I havent watched all these yet so far there have been points that have caused me to think points that i have agreed with and points i have disagreed with. But i am grateful to be able to watch all these lectures for free on youtube. So thank you to all those who have contributed to making learning easier and more accessible.
If Spider-Man has taught us anything, it's that, "With great power comes great responsibility." According to Spider-Man, strength comes with a moral obligation to society as a whole, regardless of how such strength was obtained, via radioactive spider or by hard work, for instance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spider-Man wasn't paid commensurate to his labor, so it sounds very utilitarian to me. Society has determined his services are required for the greater good even without payment.
If someone has already made this comment, let me know. But, doesn't Hillel's dictum satisfy Kant's definition of the supreme moral principle, viz., "Do not do to others what is hateful to you.", or "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you."?
@MrTedChicago These, in my opinion, are biological/natural laws. The Golden and Silver rules. The Silver rule of 'do not do to others what you would not have them do to you" is first recorded in Hippocrates "Epidemics".
I think the Teaching Company has some excellent courses also, let the free market in education rule the future, when liberty and wealth are revered America shall have it's Renaissance
what about sacrifice, does this action voilate Kant morality conception ? If I were spider man (any other kind of hero), I have to sacrifice myself for saving millions of lives, Does this action have moral worthy ? it of course does, in my perspective, but , also, in Kant morality conception, it still uses persons as a means, so, even the person is myself, anyone can give me an answer for that. thanks.
lustring 1 day ago
I would be very interested what would Kant do if he was the driver of that Damned trolley Car. According to his conception of morality , you should not use persons as means.So, in Trolley car wreck,if you let one person die, simply , just use that person as means. so , now , I am pretty convinced, if I were the driver, I would just crash 5 people rather than kill 1 spear 5. am I crazy after all. Anyone can give me an answer, please.
lustring 1 day ago
capable professor with very clear and slow english ;i like very much.
azzou123 5 days ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
Wtf!? Spiderman?
jbguy 1 month ago
I think Kant's philosophy is just, and the best method of creating a moral society. However, interestingly I think there are many people who are empathetic, sympathetic, and enjoy being good, and making others lives better, such as myself, who actually have no necessary "reverence" for good actions, but just gain pleasure from the happiness, pleasure, and success of people in general, and people around them. I am thus made amoral by this definition with no hope of morality.
Daharen 1 month ago
@Daharen That is a common misunderstanding of Kant's philosophy. What it really does is make your actions analogous to morality, not immoral. Friedrich Schiller elaborated on this in his work "On Grace and Dignity". If you have the time (you already have the interest, as it seems), it's an interesting and rewarding piece to read.
EsWe1990 1 week ago
@Daharen it is a very good theory, I think in 2 type of societies, have absolutly no moral law for whatsoever, 1 is perfect " Moral " society, 2 is opposite, deadly evil society. in the "Moral" society, if there were a conception of moral formed, then, that would undermine society, because, if the conception of moral exist, then , people would become hypocrite, people want to be moral and then conforming to the law. also, in 2 society, there won't be a moral law, because, it won't be exsisted.
lustring 1 day ago
@Daharen also, in my perspective, many many religions just like hypocrites(sorry for people if this makes you guys feel offensive), because, religions tend to use hypthetical imperatives as the reason, i.e. I don't want to go to hell, then, I behave myself, sounds persuasive ?
lustring 1 day ago
PureEast: Of course you're right. The moral thing to do is to give the customer the right change. My point was different. It was that each person's conception of "morality" is influenced by motives he has no idea he holds. Instances of ethnic cleansing doesn't necessarily benefit the people in charge; they do it because they believe it's the right thing to do.
RMax304823 1 month ago
@VincitOmniaVerit
Not so much that, it proves that we all have a capacity to REJECT rational thought if it's taught us or we adopt such a way ourselves.
I suppose that you, like myself, are tempted to regard blind unquestioning animal-minded creationists as sub-human?
That it's a wanton abandonment of our right to free thought and a waste of human grey matter and potential, I'm tempted to feel this way, yet... even these reprehensible bigoted worms of humanity are still human
InnuendoXP 1 month ago
@InnuendoXP They're all too human, like the rest of us. They just illustrate my point.
RMax304823 1 month ago
@RMax304823
in the big picture, we're only an infinitesimally bit closer to finding the truth than they are, but the reason they irk me so is that they are a part of what would stop us moving forward and really developing as a species. They represent the worst of the past and are actively trying to drag us back to it. The fact that there's a universe of things to explore and to see and to deduce and to know means nothing to them. They'd want me to live in their little world
InnuendoXP 1 month ago
OMG 26:08 spot the spider man
demigodlord 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel 2
Man, is this all pre-Freudian. Not specifically pre-psychoanalysis, but just that Kant along with everyone else believed in "reason" as a conscious thing. We know why we do something. That was before the general acceptance of the unconscious, where are hidden motives lie. I could cheat that shop customer because it was a moral thing to teach him the lesson of counting his change.
RMax304823 1 month ago
@RMax304823 By not making the customer aware of the lesson I do not think you would be treating the customer with Kantian respect. You are using them as a means to teach the lesson just like you would use a blackboard and chalk. To treat the customer with respect would be to just give them the right change in the first place and because it is the right thing to do. I do think you could remind them that it is a good idea to count change because even clerks do not always get it right.
ThePureEast 1 month ago
i fell in love at 4:51...
Sladeofdark 1 month ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
@Sladeofdark , hi, dude, who wouldn't .
lustring 1 day ago
what is your name....Judith...everyone else had a crazy name..not expecting that one. Oh and Tim was all happy about his question then....Wrong lol..oh ya spider-man and waldo. you keep distracting me
joelnarbaez 2 months ago
I find it bizzare that they film a kid taking notes.
rockrgirl01 2 months ago
it doesn't sound that convincing and i wasn't really convinced from the response at the end to the last guy's question... b/c we are still using people as means... which goes against what Kant believed in..
and also.. the prof talks about people who murder... not all of them do it for a purpose... some of them are just mentally insane- maybe we can treat them as a means and not ends in themselves...
doesn't really seem to tell me why I should be just for the sake of it
Metamorphisize 2 months ago
its great lecture that i see this night from this professor
grammar55 2 months ago
Un gran avance la ayuda a los cuadripléjicos.
Pero lo es más si se extiende la accesibilidad en lo concreto a la ayuda, por ejemplo en la Argentina.
walterbonny 2 months ago
This part has more views than the previous 5th part ..
asad24041992 2 months ago
I wish they did this with every class
TheMylittletony 2 months ago 2
Nice marketing tool by Harvard.
leomnyc 3 months ago
@leomnyc It's essentially a free college level philosophy course, and so far (I've watched six episodes) it seems a fair exploration of various political philosophies. Perhaps there may be some marketing value for Harvard, but overall it seems a good public service to me. There are sponsors and publicity and whatnot, but can you really knock free education? (Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of exclusive, "prestigious" universities that cost a fortune to attend, but this is something good.)
doubledeviant 2 months ago 3
@doubledeviant I am not knocking it. It is a marketing tool....which I'm for.
leomnyc 2 months ago
@doubledeviant Education may be free, but communication to receive at Harvard cost money)
dvernoitverd 2 months ago
undergrads fumblings are funny.
ConstitutionBenFrank 3 months ago
spiderman studies at Harvard?
utb2extreme 3 months ago 12
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 3 months ago
I cant believe a professor from Harvard is talking about Kant. He was completly againt the idea that the ends justify the means. Look it up and cross reference it with the powers that may be in washington who graduated from Harvard. Maybe that course should have been taught back when they were in school.
motivated1slacker 3 months ago
@motivated1slacker
Maybe the people who ended up in washington didn't study philosophy, and perhaps philosophy is vastly undervalued as part of a quality education.
InnuendoXP 1 month ago
all those parts make me feel dumb
MapleWorry 3 months ago
@MapleWorry
good. If you feel like you know nothing, you're already being smarter than people who think they know everything.
InnuendoXP 1 month ago
@InnuendoXP wow :O nice words
MapleWorry 1 month ago
Forgive me, but creationists prove that we are not all capable of rational thought.
VincitOmniaVerit 3 months ago 4
The guy @ 51:56 suggests that he is two people.
I think he is seperating his mind and body.
p3tr0114 3 months ago
Comment removed
p3tr0114 3 months ago
Definitely my favorite of the series.
jimmypagepkr 3 months ago
25:09 for spiderman"D rofl
orchoose 3 months ago
Wouldn't the spelling bee champ "feel like slime" because he understands the morals of his action and therefore chooses solely based on moral principal?
misterboink182 3 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
WTF spiderman?!?!?! Do you need these lectures to save the good people?
kotofu 3 months ago
Why do people think Kant's maxim differs from the laws of nature? Tigers were give long teeth and claws by nature and using them is natural. Human's are given the ability to reason autonomously so using reason is no less natural than a tiger killing a deer or a deer ripping a plant to pieces for its own satisfaction.
davekeays 3 months ago
Makes sense that Spidey would attend a lecture on Kant. Wealth and fame, he's ignored, action is his reward.
SwordSeraph 3 months ago
Does anyone that ACTUALLY took his course know what were the REQUIRED readings ? I am referring to the book, etc.
StarManFlorida 3 months ago
Hmm, imo all deeds are affected by external considerations, therefore Kant essentially says there's no moral deeds.
If shopkeeper likes honesty by itself, doesn't this affection has strong links to external world?
TheAbyrwalg 3 months ago
I was actually thinking of the shopkeeper that if he did the right thing (ie not short changing the customer) without even the thought that he could've done it - then that would show that the shopkeeper was truly virtuous. He wasn't doing what was right for his buisness, or for his reputation, but just because it was a natural outflow of him as a person fullstop.
davorunner 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Some people encourage young white females to mix with non-white males.
I made a one-minute video highlighting a very tiny sample of race-mixing advertisements.
I love white people, and I am opposed to race-mixing. But I do not hate non-whites.
If you click on my name “autumntree2011” highlighted in blue below this comment, you can watch my video.
(I'm not a fan of Hitler or KKK.)
autumntree2011 4 months ago
Is it not possible that I might take my own life or the life of another BY THE REASON of respecting his/my dignity?
Heartsinger1970 4 months ago
This is the best of youtube; better than any movie in my opinion.
Lockheim 4 months ago 2
@Lockheim I agree! It's amazing!
420gma 4 months ago
dude wtf hehehehehehe spider-man????? lol
alharima 4 months ago
"This is the week that everybody gets some Kant... Why are you laughing?"
HoSlav71 4 months ago
@HoSlav71 nice catch, totally.
inverhillsphilo 3 months ago
wtf! Spiderman, no shit!
HoSlav71 4 months ago 2
A view of incarceration being protection of society as apposed to punishment aside, should an attempted suicide then be treated as equal in offence to an attempted murder in Kant's view?
jidyck 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need religion, hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important, qualitative differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption.
Homosexual activists, with complete support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims and martyrs; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
sure are alot of asians
hempartist420 4 months ago
Anyone notice how Professor Sandel resembles Immanuel Kant?
Dreadnoughtification 4 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Justice demands we allow homosexuals to marry the same as heterosexuals. Morally, you should be voting against any ban on gay marriage because that is purposely & willfully thwarting & depriving other human beings from their natural end & what is due to them. All of us are entitled to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness. Taking away the possibility of another to love & commit in the same way as yourself is essentially a moral evil. Stand up for true human justice so we all may know PEACE.
tytheeman20 4 months ago
Now I get it, why Spiderman’s moral law is so high!! Coz he attend the Harvard. :D
sudiptadas101 4 months ago 8
Spider-Man FTW
wATTOsAGA9 4 months ago 25
This is brilliant stuff. So pleased it's available on YouTube. This particular lecture on Kant is my favourite one yet.
But seriously - why *is* Spider-Man there? Although, he is one of the more archetypal philosophical superheroes - with great power comes great responsibility and all that.
danmcdaid 4 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel 2
This has been flagged as spam show
I like the possible Freudian slip when if u start listening from around 5:30 he talks about Kant's notion of acting on the desires or the avoidance of pain = the slaves of our appetites and impulses... carry on listening until when @ 7:03 he says something interesting
Does he say message or massage?
And if it is a massage then what is he referring to? ;0
almostfateful 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
almostfateful 4 months ago
Comment removed
almostfateful 4 months ago
This professor makes me sad this is the closest I'll ever come to going to Harvard. Just being exposed to the philosophical underpinnings of modern political thought is exhilarating.. I've already got some great arguments against Libertarians and I'm anxious to see what else I'll learn. I've tried to read Kant and its very tedious. This is a great summary. I really should have been a lawyer.....
uscdave1124 4 months ago in playlist Justice: Whats The Right Thing To Do
Comment removed
Durhandoni80 4 months ago
its "rational capacity" not "national" at 4:35 - pls correct the subtitles. makes a big difference.
Klingenschmied 4 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel
its Peter Parker!
Vlad3751 4 months ago 7
Spiderman 9:37
MegaStrobelight 4 months ago 5
Anyone else notice Spiderman at 25:15?
Neophoenix965 4 months ago in playlist Justice with Michael Sandel 6
This is awesome, this has really helped... Thanks from Iceland
TheCrazyGuy91 4 months ago
spiderman and waldo ftw
NBNC1 4 months ago 65
@NBNC1 Where is Waldo?
Jurijgud 4 months ago
@NBNC1 WHERE'S WALDO??...LOL
MrFeatheredSerpent 4 months ago in playlist More videos from Harvard
@NBNC1
Wait, where's Waldo?
fleabag500 3 weeks ago
spiderman and valdo ftw
NBNC1 4 months ago
was that spiderman? rofl
marikabel 4 months ago 3
Kant must love soldiers
oopopp 4 months ago
so far, I found this the hardest lecture to follow and grasp.
f1msch 4 months ago
@f1msch I know what you mean. But in essence, I think Kant supports the idea of human beings as intrinsically worthy of respect, because they are rational beings. This means that any improper use of a human being - using them, hurting them, killing them - is intrinsically irrational, and intrinsically immoral. He also seems to be saying there is an absolute moral law to which we should all strive. It's empirical, it's real, and it's not up for grabs.
danmcdaid 4 months ago
thats so funny go spiderman go lol
MrJayman1563 5 months ago 2
Brilliant Lecture - Thanks so much - Timeless , Mindful.
anomistars 5 months ago
If I was him, I would freaking kicked spiderman out of my class - that would be 100% moral thing to do lol
Lius525 5 months ago
THE SPIDERMAN IN THE AUDIENCE CREEPS ME OUT SO MUCH eeeeeeeeeeeeek
lostaddict12 5 months ago
lol 0:38 spiderman
gordiehannan 6 months ago 4
@gordiehannan Mr. Parker is quite the intellectual being a man of both science and philosophy. lol ;)
SyncopatedNightmares 6 months ago
I agree with most Kantian principles, except that it makes the wrongful assumption that we all have the capacity of reason, which is obviously erroneous. Also, I would go further and propose the idea that true morality should have no motive at all, not even duty. We should just do what is "natural" and effortless without even having to think about it. Utopia is not far behind now, is it?
zabelicious 6 months ago
@zabelicious //We should just do what is "natural" and effortless without even having to think about it.// What? A lot of things considered immoral today comes "natural" to many people. Do not make the classic naturalistic fallacy. Morality is a serious and difficult issue that has to be reasoned and measured.
ai1888 6 months ago
@ai1888 There is nothing fallacious about nature. In fact, you have no idea what I am talking about. Perhaps I am being too vague. When I say we should do what comes natural, I mean it in a cognitive sense. Sort of like what an animal would do. You will have to agree that so called lower animal, do not know what is right or wrong, they have no sense of morality, therefore they cannot be wrong because they act out of their natural instinct. No enough room to discuss much here!
zabelicious 5 months ago
@zabelicious ummm, I don't think you know what a naturalistic fallacy means. You are not making the is-ought distinction. If, by cognitive sense, you mean our natural tendency to feel empathy, then yeah, ofcourse we need to excercise that more. Empathy is one thing that sets us apart from other animals (most). Ofcourse the act of any animal lacking a moral compass cannot be termed wrong, that is absurd. When did you hear me say otherwise?
ai1888 5 months ago
@ai1888 Now this naturalistic fallacy concept is kind of outdated because there is nothing that genetically predispose humans to behave in any particular way. New research have amply demonstrated that it is environment as well as genetics that dictates our tendencies. When there are dilemmas, to fulfill one need rather then another, humans have much more then animals to ponder. Also, why do you talk about animal suffering in the context of morality? what does that have to do with any of this?
zabelicious 5 months ago
@zabelicious You still don't understand the naturalistic fallacy. Please look it up. There is nothing that genetically predisposes humans? You are factually wrong on this, on so many levels. I have to insist on suffering because I disagree with Kant's reasoning that rationality is the only principle to base morality, and his complete disregard for animal rights.
ai1888 5 months ago
@ai1888 Animals have no rights, it's a man-made concept that exists only because of the inability of certain individuals (usually greedy, insecure, fearful, mental incompetency, etc) to make the "right" decision, as define by Kant (rising above self-interest, inclination and just act out of a sense of duty) Animals kill each other, so what? Humans torturing animals is wrong. Check out The Genetics Myth - clip from Zeitgeist
zabelicious 5 months ago
The more I listen the more I tend to equate utilitarianism with a positive explanation (how things actually are) for why people behave the way they do (while also being a justification for their action), while Kantianism with a normative explanation (the way something should be). Obviously, as stated before, utilitarians would argue that utilitarianism is normative because they believe people should act to benefit the greatest number the greatest amount.
g13iceman 6 months ago
Then focus on immoral, and consider that we can't make everyone better than average. So bettering yourself to earn more than average, being smarter than average (and incidentally going to Harvard) is immoral. If a society has 51 males and 49 females, monogamy would be immoral. If a society of 100 people has 1 blind man, watching a movie by any of the other 99 is immoral.
matthewpng 6 months ago
Is possibility of being a universal law a sufficient or necessary condition? Cos if sufficient, then everyone can blink their eyes without making blinking some kind of social problem or self-contradicting thing. That'd be absurd to say it's moral to blink. If necessary but not sufficient, then question is, what conditions make it sufficient to be moral? Perhaps moral is just anything that's not immoral. That'd be easy using his litmus test of universality, and blinking would be moral.
matthewpng 6 months ago
Kant is saying that your motive must be good before your actions are good? And good is when it's an end in itself? Then what's "good"? It's just...good is good. Good isn't something done to make people happy, not the elevated social norms in a society, not anything...cos that'd make it a mean to something. Although good could accidentally be a means to something, isn't Kant making good just simply undefined and assumed? But what the heck is that?
matthewpng 6 months ago
I disagree with Kant's premise that Human's capacity to reason is the moral supreme principle. What about animals and birds? I think instead of asking "can they reason?" we should ask "Can they suffer?"
ai1888 6 months ago
@ai1888 you're mixing your apples with your oranges... Animals behavior is not driven by any moral principles, it is driven by their instinctual need for survival (e.g. sexual reproduction, food, comfort) and they are willing to do anything to get that. Do you eat meat or fish? Do you wear fur or leather or contribute to the economy that destroys forests, oceans or any eco-systems? We all suffer from time to time, it's called life!
zabelicious 6 months ago
@zabelicious You are overestimating the animal's instinctual driving force without any basis. Chimpanzees have been observed to be very social , and even altruistic. But that is not even the point I am making. Kant suggests that the reason we have to be moral to a fellow human being is because that fellow human being is a rational person, and we have to respect that. That is his moral supreme principle, which begs the question. Should we not respect animals, solely because they are not rational?
ai1888 6 months ago
@ai1888 Maybe you should contemplate taking the human Behavior Biology lecture series of Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford. He is a well known authority on primate behavior and yes he did point out that some rudimentary sense of "moral" exists in some primate species, after all humans are a more evolved kind of primate (mostly due to the size of frontal cortex and the use of language) and it is fair to compare them to us, say as opposed to dogs, zebras or salmons. This is not about respect!
zabelicious 6 months ago
@zabelicious I have a fairly decent understanding of human and animal behavior. Again, you are digressing. I am not talking about the moral capacities of animals. I am simply talking about their capacity to suffer.
ai1888 6 months ago
Comment removed
BigMackRector 6 months ago
He is so brilliant. It makes me want to go back and do it all over again.
missbehavior87 6 months ago
If Kant, answer that way to the challege of the murderer at the door he was an hypocrite. I think the cartegorical imperative demands that you tell the truth but it would also demand the defense of yur friend. So Kant´s answer should be "Yes he is here but you will not come in" Even if it meant that the murderer kills you and your friend in the end.
C0LACHIT0 6 months ago
@C0LACHIT0 lol, just fucking lie.
Drgamedood 6 months ago
@Drgamedood LMFAO DAMMED RIGHT!
C0LACHIT0 6 months ago
Wtf, Spiderman was in the neighbourhood or something?
PktMma 6 months ago
That was good.
EyonDreams 6 months ago
I would've thought Spiderman would've been knowledgeable about the subject and in no need of the course....but since he is there, it's comforting to see that he obviously cares enough to give himself the best opportunity to understand it fully, and is therefore truly autonomous.
bloodhounder 6 months ago 3
Why is someone dressed as spiderman in the crowd?
PaulinSaudi2 7 months ago 3
A query regarding categorical imperative...
Kant stated that all human life must be respected as an end in and onto itself, and not as a means to selfish desires. Using this logic, one would be capable to assume that Kant does not endorse any form of violent retaliation that may result in the death of another person (i.e. Self Defense), as you are essentially utilizing that person as a means to justify your own self interest to preserve yourself as an end.
Can anyone object to this? Thank you.
MagicianOfSeer 7 months ago
Hey wait. I see Spiderman at 01:45......lol
sanddolphin 7 months ago
Look at all the fucks he's giving!
schnitzal 7 months ago
I wonder if Spiderman needs this course in his next movie. Hmm
HeadBangTheory 7 months ago
Comment removed
HellisListening1 9 months ago
Thank you Professor Sandel for posting this. It made this principle easier for me to understand.
and thank you Harvard.
taiya001 9 months ago 50
"Someone who's miserable" 17:42 lol
unionation 9 months ago 3
I wish he spoke faster, I think he thinks he's helping our minds keep up with him, and to understand him, but it doesn't allow for the lecture to flow naturally, and seem cohesive.
matprithellodave 9 months ago
so even if you do things because of the right reasons you still don't have real freedom ? you're just acting on your desire to be good ?
black guy that asks the question at 22:30 is one insightful mofo !
also what I get from Kant so far is the best counterpoint to the notion that acting in your self interest is the only logical choice (I think this is what Ayn Rand says ?)
shodanxx 9 months ago
I wish I could have been there and asked prof. Sandel, but maybe one of you can give me a thought provoking answer. Though Kant talks about *reason* being our ticket to acting freely, isn't *reason* the most mechanical, rigid and non-free capacity we have? Systematical thought; the breaking down of concepts into linguistical nodes small enough for us to process in an algorithm of comparison and step-by-step evaluation; a very bound and systematical process, almost the opposite of imagination?
Bobstew68 10 months ago
@Bobstew68 I think Kant would say that in reason we must put aside all other inclinations and emotional baggage. But I see your problem I think. Would logically following it to a common moral ground shared between all human beings not be a law itself that would govern us despite our reason? Or is our reason always tainted by upbringing etc. and therefore truly always intrinsically personal, and thus not free from emotional inclinations and cannot always be followed to a common moral ground?
Notharah 9 months ago
at 25:21 the girl next to spiderman is like what the fuck?
IGNsucks 10 months ago
What's with the Spiderman??? :D
vessybuzz 10 months ago
24:20 sleepy head!
isleepinabin 11 months ago
I have never met anyone rational enouth to deserve to be treated with dignity. We are all animals.
slonamu 11 months ago
@slonamu
hahaha in your case no one should be treated with dignity...you have made it impossible for us rational beings to earn & it therefore loses it's meaning.
if we aren't animals & yet we are rational...would that make us worthy of dignity?
Abgef 10 months ago
Kant leaves it open to interpretation...what is a "moral" duty?
what is the standard & which duties/sense of duties can be deemed moral?
it completely leaves the question of morality unanswered.
Abgef 11 months ago
@Abgef Kant doesn't leave moral duties open to interpretation.
He said somethibg along the lines of 'whereby a maxim can be willed to become a universal law' - then, that is what a moral duty is. In other words, if an action can be undertaken by EVERYONE the world over, it would then become a moral law or duty. i.e; honesty - yes. stealing - no.
Could each and every person be honest? Yes. Conversely, everyone in the world steal?
pseudonominous 10 months ago
@pseudonominous
In other words, if an action can be undertaken by EVERYONE the world over, it would then become a moral law or duty. i.e; honesty - yes. stealing - no.
but then he leaves it to popularity...if racism is popular enough & can indeed be taken the world over...it would be morally correct.
what about the ones that majority cannot agree upon? where is the moral law there?
is it even morally correct to leave the objectivity of moral laws to subjective popularity?
Abgef 10 months ago
@Abgef Heh heh!! You're getting there! Yes, an action would have to be able to be undertaken by EVERYONE for it to become a moral duty or law. Popularity, no. I think that would veer more toward utilitarianism than Categorical Imperative.
Something CANNOT become a moral law if you can't think that EVERYONE could adopt it - the majority have nothing to do with it. 99% people in the world thought it ok to torture animals, that .1 remaining thought it wrong - it cannot be a moral law (under Kant)
pseudonominous 10 months ago
@Abgef Hadn't enough characters to finish! Nothing to do with popularity. Moral duty has to be undertaken by everyone. Racism is a no go because there would be some people that are on the receiving end, hence not universal. Doesn't matter if a majority cannot agree, has to be everyone. With Kant, there's NO subjectivity - something is universally morally correct or not.
Categorical Imperative - you can't be influenced by ANYTHING! Except on rationality, free will and autonomy - no majority....
pseudonominous 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pseudonominous
"something is universally morally correct or not."
so what is the objective basis for this claim of morality? it's very circular.
"Categorical Imperative - you can't be influenced by ANYTHING! Except on rationality, free will and autonomy - no majority"
Then wouldn't that make his theory libertarian by nature? ...putting emphasis on both personal freewill & autonomy?
Abgef 10 months ago
@Abgef I think you missed the part about the "categorical imperative". The categorical imperative answers your questions. (Or perhaps the cat imper is discussed in the next episode? I forget. In any case, that is your answer.
dklilm0mma 10 months ago
Comment removed
MarekSuc 2 months ago
Comment removed
Abgef 11 months ago
Comment removed
Abgef 11 months ago
Spiderman is in the crowd because he was the warm up act:
"with great power comes great responsibility!......that's folks, you've been great! and now our main act...."
ENGLISHBL0KE 1 year ago
13:17 - 13:30 SPIDERMAN sitting in the audience. LOL
graw81 1 year ago 2
Where is the spiderman???
By the way, this episode is bit hard for me to digest.
lemuriavi 1 year ago
@lemuriavi
17:05 Spiderman is seen in the middle about 3 rows back
ryrysofly11 1 year ago
@ryrysofly11 LOL, That would be the last thing I could imagine someone to wear in to this kind of course.
lemuriavi 1 year ago
why is spiderman there? :o
CoolParkourName 1 year ago
tutorial for wannabe saints
yuvo81 1 year ago
@yuvo81 tutorial for people with some kind of moral compass.
todesowna 1 year ago
the reason why many dislike philosophy is because of those german idealists, especially kant. Kant's system fails, JSM owns him.
LeoLeoni13 1 year ago
funding for this program is provided by
langengro 1 year ago
underline the sentences
iTanagorn 1 year ago
A harvard professor would do well to understand the difference between morality and justice. (Btw, I am purposefully not capitalizing that.)
Stop being a douche.
madstork91 1 year ago
@madstork91
Is it possible to act in a way that is just but not moral? Is it possible to act in a way that is moral but not just?
propercupofcoffee 1 year ago
LOL! WTF, Spiderman????
geofreyr 1 year ago
I havent watched all these yet so far there have been points that have caused me to think points that i have agreed with and points i have disagreed with. But i am grateful to be able to watch all these lectures for free on youtube. So thank you to all those who have contributed to making learning easier and more accessible.
osburn14 1 year ago 83
Spiderman is there to make sure we are paying attention.
tramsay1027 1 year ago 4
I've never known that spiderman's favorite is JUSTICE.
then, I tried to find MJ.
shotainoue 1 year ago
@shotainoue Now, if Spider-Man is in the auditorium because of MJ, it is hypothetical imperatie, and is not morally worthy.
uo0o0ou 1 year ago
Comment removed
shotainoue 1 year ago
Kant is pure
DraskyVanderhoff 1 year ago
If Spider-Man has taught us anything, it's that, "With great power comes great responsibility." According to Spider-Man, strength comes with a moral obligation to society as a whole, regardless of how such strength was obtained, via radioactive spider or by hard work, for instance. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Spider-Man wasn't paid commensurate to his labor, so it sounds very utilitarian to me. Society has determined his services are required for the greater good even without payment.
allenu 1 year ago 2
Sandel didn't attend well to the last objection.
HermesNautico 1 year ago
26:08 there is a student dressed as spider-man.
HermesNautico 1 year ago
If someone has already made this comment, let me know. But, doesn't Hillel's dictum satisfy Kant's definition of the supreme moral principle, viz., "Do not do to others what is hateful to you.", or "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you."?
MrTedChicago 1 year ago
@MrTedChicago These, in my opinion, are biological/natural laws. The Golden and Silver rules. The Silver rule of 'do not do to others what you would not have them do to you" is first recorded in Hippocrates "Epidemics".
TheSpearthrower 1 year ago
Indeed, everyone is hankering after the categorical imperative.
no2body3home 1 year ago
lol wtf spiderman is smart!
valle4782 1 year ago
spiderman loves Kant
mysegments 1 year ago
notice how at the end you hear clapping, but don't see anyone actually clapping
enaner 1 year ago 5
I think the Teaching Company has some excellent courses also, let the free market in education rule the future, when liberty and wealth are revered America shall have it's Renaissance
RunLiberty 1 year ago 4
@RunLiberty
..."America shall have it's Renaissance"? "...it's"?! So much for "free market education" and "wealth"!
doubtnegqgood 1 year ago
@doubtnegqgood Woooah! A misplaced apostrophe! Oh no!!!!!!
rumpranger65 1 year ago
@RunLiberty does that mean ill get some mcdonalds coupons in the back of my mathsbook?
stukya 1 year ago
Why the hell is spiderman in the audience?
feroxcious 1 year ago 52