Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 07: "A LESSON IN LYING"

[ahorrell]

heh heh heh... he said duty

[crollmarketing]

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was a seminal work. Love it!

[asad24041992]

The girl at 00:50 lolz

[ppssorange]

only Episode 1-6 have subtitle ?

[Illustrisima]

even if i do one 'immoral' thing that does not mean i am incapable of being a moral being

[FlorinGG]

Why do girls make a question out of every sentence?

[socksnundies]

Did he fart at 40:17????

[santoshpful]

That was the discussion which made to think others, where moral laws were flawed in utter ignorancein a normal life.I feel kant looses his hypothesis when it takes an account of active life situations.Utalitarians are no where near by but the moral grounds on which a person need to decide about a situation is autonomous and the action given by opposite person is simply the reciprocity of the response to his question.

[Ambit10n9]

So is the veil of ignorance the internet? Seriously, he just described the internet.

[animal0689]

case of beer 17.95$

harvard lecture free

gaining a college education while getting smashed....priceless

[makiimedia]

@animal0689 beer is so fucking expensive in america? :O it s only like 5 euros here in germany :)

[TheMylittletony]

Kant is way too radical

[Gj24fll]

I love this discussion...

[objetive100]

no subtitles spanish :(

[VincitOmniaVerit]

Kant's utterly fails when it comes to self-justification and cognitive dissonance. In short, people are capable of committing harmful acts and this creates a discord in their minds: I am a good person yet I just inflicted pain on another person. Thus, in order to resolve this conflict in their minds, people will often say: wait I am a good person and what I did was not wrong, in fact, that guy deserved it. This is exactly why we are not all acting out of some intinsic duty all the time.

[miraclechipmunk]

very nice summary last 2-3minutes

[jimmypagepkr]

5 people are lying

[VNSki]

@jimmypagepkr 324 ppl are making a misleading truth,

[chayanott]

Harvard girls seem not only smart, but also hot as well...

[bongobeatnick]

Surely the Clintonesque way of answering is WORSE than an outright lie, since he's having his cake and eating it too.

It's obvious that his main aim was to have people believe there was nothing of a sexual nature going on. This is entirely self-serving, its only purpose being a safeguard, so you can point out after you are found out that "technically" you didn't lie. I believe this to be cowardly and weasley politician-speak rather than a "hommage to the dignity of moral law". gimme a break..

[Phobos2085]

What about lying in deffense of life? "Is he in that closet? yes or no?" If you say yes you chose to sacrific life. if you say no you give a lie.

[Th3D4nny]

@Phobos2085 you say *Follow me!* and run to the police, because than you didn't lie and you save the closet person. IF he follows you. if he does not follow you he might open the closet and kill the person in it, but than you still didn't lie and you didn't betray the person in the closet.

[TheAssesKicker]

Nate is right.

[termi892]

At around 20:00 ...don't you either respect something or not? Does it really matter if you are not lying if you don't want to tell the truth and are trying to mislead others?

[eriCartmanable]

Kelly is HOT!!!!

[danmcdaid]

I mean "sexual relations" of course. Whoops.

[danmcdaid]

...nor an outright lie, he is in fact telling the truth *as he sees it*. He would have to be naive indeed to think that fellatio is not "sexual relationships". Instead, in his fear and arrogance, he has convinced himself of his rightness, and acted accordingly.

[danmcdaid]

The problem with applying Kantian theory to the Clinton case is that, as expressed here, it allows no room for self-deception. The professor concludes that Clinton tells an evasive truth here as "homage" to higher Kantian ideals. But my instincts tell me he is wrong - that in fact Clinton (who I generally like, by the way) is typical of many narcissists, in that he can convince himself of that which is untrue, if it makes him look better. So in that clip he is neither telling an evasive truth...

[Vlad3751]

the easiest way to get away with not lying is to tell people that you don't want to answer, which is ultimately true. So in case with a murderer, simply say " I don't want to talk to you". Or simply not say anything at all.

[KaptnKrunch100]

sorry for being immature...but...Kant..cunt.. pfft. haha!

[Durhandoni80]

@KaptnKrunch100 So what, it´s german not english. But you apologized for your comment, so it doesen´t matter.

[qtutoringhelps]

Why should anybody honour or obey a moral law if they are not concerned with consequences?

[chrisca83]

@qtutoringhelps You are right. The person without regard to consequences as a sovereign person could exercise his free will to injure another. However society's social contract would impose a sanction or punishment on that person by reason that your disregard was in still an infringement on his actual person. In other words an infringement on another's autonomy is an infringement on your own autonomy.

[qtutoringhelps]

@chrisca83

"In other words an infringement on another's autonomy is an infringement on your own autonomy."

How? If I initiate physical aggression against you, I have not by that fact alone violated my autonomy. If the police subsequently intervene later, it is not my actions that have infringed on my "own autonomy" but theirs.

[danmcdaid]

@qtutoringhelps Because there is an intrinsic worth to morality, regardless of consequences. If one only thinks of consequences, one isn't really being moral - one is acting out of fear. And if you act out of fear, you're not truly free - you're just obeying an animalistic fight or flight impulse. The key word: obeying. If I read it right, Kant is saying that to make a moral act of your own will - regardless of consequence - is the only true freedom.

[danmcdaid]

@qtutoringhelps Or, to quote Optimus Prime, Freedom is the right of all intelligent beings. Prime and Kant would have had a lot to talk about, probably.

[Heartsinger1970]

@qtutoringhelps I should honor a moral law, because it is my will to do so. That law which is truly moral, which perfectly comports itself with what is right and just, is also the law which I, in my ability to reason, will choose for myself and others. It would perfectly reflect the diety inherent in all of us. To break this law would place me in conflict with my own (and by extension of that diety, our own) will.

[PktMma]

Was the Asian guy lost and he just stumbled in there?

[UnitedWeDivide]

Is it just me, or does Kant violate his own is/ought fallacy? He makes rationality the gold standard of morality - as I understand it, because humans can't be moral unless they are free and can't be free unless they are rational. Because humans are rational we can be free, and thus can be moral. But this doesn't provide any incentive to be moral. Sandel says that, according to Kant, it is moral to want to be moral. Well if we ought be what we are, rational beings, doesn't that violate is ought?

[EyonDreams]

Great lecture. Thank you!

[MrSpence96]

Mill says that Kant must agree with Mill."Otherwise he uses words without a meaning: for, that a rule even of utter selfishness could not possibly be adopted by all rational beings — that there is any insuperable obstacle in the nature of things to its adoption — cannot be even plausibly maintained. To give any meaning to Kant’s principle, the sense put upon it must be, that we ought to shape our conduct by a rule which all rational beings might adopt with benefit to their collective interest"

[ai1888]

"You shouldn't have"

[MultiUniv3rsal]

The first hour was like listening to a modernized William Blake poem.

[patachone]

I agree with Kant's ideas on categorical imperative, but not with his answer on the murderer dilemma. Indeed, it is wrong to consider that in this action only 1 moral principle is at stake. In this case, 2 major moral laws are confronting each others: 1) telling the truth 2) Not murdering anyone or not helping in any way someone to do so. As the respect of the person (and its life) is the core of moral duty, it sounds thus obvious to me that life respect should be privileged over the truth.

[steinmil]

No more subtitles :(

[KorsarNik]

Damn, lection oh hypocrisy. How to lie and stay clean, and convience yourself, that you are not doing anything wrong. No wonder that many of Harvard's graduates become a good politics.

[PeggyTeachesChinese]

英文字幕怎麼不見了??? >_<

[shelly8510]

As far as backing out of contracts before the trade has taken place, this is already worked out in the market. When you contract to buy a house, which takes about a month before the house changes hands, you put up a security deposit in case the buyer backs out. In the case of marriage the engagement ring serves as a security deposit. If the man backs out the women gets to keep the ring. If the woman backs out she must give it back to him.

[shelly8510]

I agree with Nate. If you don't agree to the benefit and price you have no obligation to pay. I worked with vendors haggling prices and making contracts. No vendor would do work without a signed contract. If they had the account payable department would not have payed. Maybe if the relationship with the vendor was important and the price was fair we would pay, but in no way would we be obligated to.

[usmcoth]

Just ask Al Collings? If O.J. came to your door and said I an going to be chased by the police and I need you to evade them by putting your life in harms way for as long as you can for what I have done. O.J. couldn't have done it alone. That's right Al was not only a willing but active participant in not only preventing law enforcement from taking O.J. into custody WITHOUT ANY THREAT TO HIS OWN LIFE. O.J. was not holding a knife or gun to his head (O.J. was hiding in the back on the floor.

[Abgef]

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.

[htddu908]

Philosophy should be taught very early in all schools just as math and english, the basics, I think today its so easy to forget the basics, and maybe it will lead to a better world.

[shinenot]

Where are the subtitles?

[mnagmobile]

@shinenot press the CC button and hit transcribe you retard.

[longfootbuddy]

clinton shouldve told the media that it was none of theyr business .. but being a decietful politician, he decided to twist the truth.. to the extreme

[trotwoodtrouble]

well I have a new insight about the taking of a life question?

[tahntalus]

what about contracts that are notarized and such? would they not be deemed legal and binding? could a person after having a contract signed, take it to court and challenge whether or not it is moral?

[CuntryDriver]

[9:36] He mentioned that "We already know that lying is wrong", where did he reference that lying is wrong?

From what I've heard, lying is only morally wrong when used to commit fraud

[BusinessButterfly]

@CuntryDriver lol *

[redninjastarx]

Discernible freedom is not present in an intelligible world. I would assume a high and mighty professor at Harvard would know this already.

There is no moral hinge on lying, it is a biological impulse prompted by our survival instinct and mechanisms. Morals are dichotomized by science, science dictates that morals are present simply for the sufficiency of society to act as a coherent being.

All this is based on hierarchical knowledge derived through experience. There is no pure reason.

[felix242]

@redninjastarx your objection is sort of misguided and out of context. You should watch the episodes leading up to this one. What you're describing is actually a Utilitarian view of justice that the professor brings up in ep1. He eventually brings up Kant who objects to the thought that "morals are dictated primarily by what will benefit society as a whole" (in your own words, utilitarian view) to the belief that there is pure reason.

[felix242]

@redninjastarx So in essence, you're actually a defender of Utility in the Utilitarian vs. Kantian match up using science as the reason (ie mechanism for coherency in society). Kantian ethics emerged later in response to Utility. I think Kant deals with the issue Utilitarians have which is "Doing the right thing for the wrong reason" ie Justice is only a means to an end but not an end in itself. I side with Kant but that's where we can agree to disagree.

[rgrig]

How was Clinton's statement technically true? Was it the plural, or am I missing something else?

[fonsidream]

@rgrig I did not have sexual relations with that woman -pause, gaze averted- Ms. Lewinsky. "sexual relations" = groups "I" and "that woman" = separates He alone did not group - with her. Both of them had to group. Technically true statement on his testimony, regardless of incident. It is different from: We didn’t have sexual relations or That woman and I didn’t have sexual relations. Also, take note of his finger gesture outwards. Also, the pause and gaze. Is it clear?

[TheMeganicenick]

To JFSOCC, nothing personal.

I think you mistuderstood the professor talking about Kant. " would Kant not argue that to deceive someone, even by telling the truth, is categorically wrong?" You also said Kant's theory is the same. View the video 10:40 onward, and professor says one should not lie even in the face of death, or saving someone life. I fully disagree with this theory (view example below). Lying is wrong b/c that's what ppl teach kids generally. Adults should look @situations.

[felix242]

@TheMeganicenick Actually, JFSOCC makes a very good point. I'm not sure that you understand Kant's idea of justice. Kant sees that morality should be an end in itself and not just a means to an end. JFSOCC has a valid point because you are lying (a means) to save a friend (or achieve a good end). However, you also have the moral dilemma that where if one lives by Kantian values and chooses to always abide by moral duty (in this case, always being truthful), one cannot lie.

[TheMeganicenick]

gascatia, nothing personal.

A murderer doesn't have good intentions therefore he's a murderer. Whether he places his hand on a holy book does not matter to him, b/c he's already breaking big commendment. Clinton knowningly lied to everybody, he's not a murderer he represented (supposed to) all of America. If he really cared about Americans, he wouldn't say, "I want to make this very clear to Americans" and then lie. Ppl may argument this but if I remember kindergarden teachings, its not right.

[TheMeganicenick]

Professor's agreement to Kant's idea that no one should lie is appalling. What if the friend had said I'm hiding in your closet, don't inform the person trying to kill me? In addition, few of these Harvard students were able to think of something deceiving to say to the to be killer. But a person with normal intellect might not be able to think of a deceiving lie that quick in front of the killer. They they think just b/c they can do it so should everyone else. Lying to save a life a good thing.

[felix242]

@TheMeganicenick I think you need to watch the video before this on Kant's idea of true freedom and moral duty. That way you'll understand why this scenario about lying to a murderer to protect a friend is brought up. The issue at hand is whether you can uphold the moral duty of always telling the truth regardless of external influences. The scenario of the murderer at your door is testing that idea.

[gascatia]

I would argue that a lie is justified when it is inviting. For example, in court, an alleged murderer was asked without any proofs. "Did you kill him?" I would say, it is justified for the murderer, to say no even if he did! Because the court is forcing, and inviting him to lie. For the same reason, it was justified for Clinton to lie American people until sustainable proofs were known.

[rtofield]

was clinton telling the truth with the intention of deceiving out of a feeling of duty to step aside for bush?

[JFSOCC]

As for the discussion on whether a misleading truth is better than a lie, I would argue that it is the same, a deception is a deception. would Kant not argue that to deceive someone, even by telling the truth, is categorically wrong?

Regardless, I think the point is moot. If the end is dignity, respect for man as an autonomous creature, then lying is easily allowed, even by Kant's theory: By lying you protect the life of your friend, and you don't prevent the murderer to exist autonomously.

[JFSOCC]

@JFSOCC or would respect for life be seen in this case as an end, to which the means used to get there are categorically wrong?

[gascatia]

@JFSOCC No. Lying means you use the murder as a means to protect your friend's life. You fail to treat murder as an end, worthy of respect.

By deception, u show a sense of duty, the duty of telling the truth or treating humans as ends.

u need 2 universalize the situation

"if everyone lies in face of murders, then no murders will believe the lies"

but, "if everyone deceives in face of murders, then murders will try to understand the deceptions", sometimes they will, but sometimes they wont.

[uralub]

Really heavy doses of Kant

[doIsoundlikeicare]

I have one major problem with Part One. Kant assumes true freedom is possible. I don't feel are actions or motives can truly ever be free: ie separated from cause and effect. We seem to be slaves to cause and effect because causality (like space, time, and substance) seems a fundamental feature of reality.

We've acheived a great deal over the course of human history (fueled partly by specialization + cooperation) - but why pretend that we have at some point in our past transcended causality.

[doIsoundlikeicare]

English is such a messy language. I wish we could exchange distilled ideas. Language can help to craft - but also ultimately currupts - our ideas.

(I can't quantify how greatly I'd have benefited from very clear definitions of 'morality', 'freedom', 'duty', and 'dignity' - and a purely logical explanation of how these lead unabritrarily to a veneration of Rawl's principle of 'equality')

[Brianrevol]

no transskript :( why?

[gascatia]

I think there should be something like "Moral Worth" to identify better moral actions if there is selection between the two or more actions.

for example, in this murderer at the door case, the moral worth of telling the truth is outvalued by moral worth of saving a human life.

[doIsoundlikeicare]

@gascatia how do we qualify or quantify moral worth? Can we quantify and value moral worth - that is - can we do for 'morality' what 'money' tries to do for all (exchanged) human labour and its products?

[paranoia2120]

I like the video but they didn't really answer my question. No real solutions. The reason why this keeps happening, is because people don't understand how to spot lies. They get taken advantage of, used and tossed to the curve. -- looking for a solution to the cheating and lying problem? Goto my channel right now! Learn the art of deception detection, did some knowledge about emotional timing and you'll never be played again.

[no2body3home]

The circuitous and recondite nature of Kant's theory (ironically?) explains why the world is so unsafe.

[elephantinpajamas]

about religion: saving life and/or doing Gd's will is a higher value than truth telling. Look at Jacob when he lied to his father in order to get the blessing so he could better serve Gd.

On the other hand, he may have paid a price for lying. That doesn't make lying, in some circumstances, "a wrong thing." On the contrary, it may make it a greater right, since one must face even self-contradiction and incur guilt. In such a case, the impartial arbiter is shown for what he is: abstract.

[elephantinpajamas]

@juraad: My point is that there's no reason to be distracted by the abstracted concerns of the impartial arbiter regarding lying. The circumstances call for a much more fundamental response.

In any case, I have no problem with the moral ambiguity of lying when the situation calls for it. Take the case of J. Maccain as a prisoner of war giving false information. By wasting the enemy's time he might save lives, a higher value than truth telling.

My point about religion, cont'd

[no2body3home]

@elephantinpajamas I suspect that's what Sisela Bok's book "Lies for the Public Good" is about. The categorical imperative gets much too hard when friendship and love are involved.

[juraad]

@elephantinpajamas: There is some detached sense of morality. We all are people, we all are emphatic. First because that is what people are and second because of our upbringing.

We all are similar in our desires and feelings, because of the culture we share. Therefore, we can see our own actions also through the eyes of all others and that is your detached sense of morality. Just because religions incorporated that first and called it God doesnßt mean that it doesnßt exist

[elephantinpajamas]

@juraad: the murderer is asking the home owner to cooperate in his intention to murder. under the circumstances i see no significant moral obligation on the part of the home owner to answer his question as it's overridden by the obligation of protecting life. to cooperate in murder for the sake of an abstract principal just doesn't make any sense in this case. the greatest truth is to refuse to cooperate. to help the murderer in any way is the greatest falsehood possible.

[juraad]

You are right that telling the murderer the truth is "greatest falsehood possible". And the obligation to tell the truth is overridden by the obligation of protecting life. I absolutely agree with that.

I was responding to the last sentence in your comment though. The one about the detached sense of morality, and I still think the homeowner would know, while lying to the murderer, that he is lying and from the point of view of some impartial arbiter ("god") that lying is a wrong thing.

[DomFortress]

05:10 dignifying humanity with the morality of reasoning

[elephantinpajamas]

His discussion of the murderer at the door is absurd. The powerful truth is that the home owner goes to the door and says, "I'm not going to tell you anything about anyone and I want you off my property right now." This ridiculous idea of some detached sense of morality is just transplanted religion.

[RunLiberty]

Federal and state governments have too much control witness the Federal Reserve monster

[CohanDigitmatta]

I love how, moving into careers in law, these students will not utilize this information. As it doesn't take into account the money - human relationship they will face in reality.

And, how these lectures are themselves, money spinners.

Probably the most romanticised, over simplified entertainment on youtube though (not including any pirated Disney clips), confuse away dear Michael!

[achilles198585]

performance of the contract(explanation) dirty minds lol

[achilles198585]

fine lol..

[copyandpasteworld]

@45:00 I do think he should have paid the mechanic.

Reason: The mechanic told him beforehand how much it woul cost for his service, and if Michael did not want his service he could have said:"Let's agree into something before you start working", but he said nothing and whatched the man working for 15 minutes.

[Walls2008]

@copyandpasteworld Nope, he sought clarification of the terms and therefore there was no agreement yet. The mechanic was assuming, probably in an effort to start up the contract, that he could go ahead.

[ErikNikolai]

Under Kant's moral system, you are only moral to the degree that you suffer. Even if you desire to be moral, your desire nullifies the morality of your actions. Whoever chooses to follow Kant's philosophy, deserves the misery they get.

[Truthiness231]

@ErikNikolai I think you greatly missed the point of Kant's philosophy: desire to be moral is a moral act, not something that nullifies it. We covered in the last episode why it's OK to both benefit from doing something right as long as at the same time you choose to do it because it's the moral thing to do, which doing something moral for the joy of morality does fit under. That last sentence of yours is a non sequitur, which is probably why people that have come before me didn't like the post.

[Truthiness231]

To elaborate: Kant was saying that the only moral means to any moral end is to do something for humanities sake, for societies sake, rather than for your own personal gain disregarding society. "Disregarding society" is what differentiates what you were complaining about and what is truly immoral; to do something moral for the moral reason is the appropriate approach, even if you happen to get some personal enjoyment out of helping society. In fact that's a plus; society gains from enjoying it.

[doIsoundlikeicare]

@Truthiness231 You make a great point, but you haven't solved morality. I think you are right that Kant wants us to do what is 'moral' because it is 'moral'. So for Kant is is moral to be 'honest' for the sake of being 'honest' (but being honest primarily to 'save a life' - for instance - would lack moral worth). Why is it not moral - from Kant's perspective - to 'punch a wall' for the sake of 'punching a wall'? Apparently it is perfectly moral if it can be both the means and the end.

[Abgef]

@Truthiness231

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.

[Truthiness231]

@Abgef Kant had plenty of answers for morality, they just didn't get completely covered in this video. I was merely addressing what Kant called "good will" with regards to his Categorical Imperative, but he did have some "answers" in some of his other works on morality based on religion.

Hopefully Harvard will accept Stanford as a valid reference (and without removing my post): plato(d07)stanford(d07)edu/ent­ries/kant-moral/ plato(d07)stanford(d07)edu/ent­ries/kant-religion/

[Abgef]

@Truthiness231

morality based on religion? LOL

so on what basis can we say religion is the moral judge? ...which religion?

if you say christianity, then kant's theory pretty much fucks itself up.

[Truthiness231]

@Abgef I concur completely, which is why I put "answers" in quotes (they were answers as far as he seen them, not how we modern secular humanists see them). As brilliant as Kant was, he fell into the same mental trap so many other great thinkers before him fell into: that at the limit of pragmatic understand, somewhere, was some magic force to explain everything.

[calvinjones]

@Truthiness231

I struggle to see how there is a difference between the shop keeper who acts 'in veneration' of morality or in other words because he has a desire to be moral (or could we say, to FEEL moral) and the spelling bee champion who acts in order not to feel awful ( or could we say, not to BE afflicted by his conscience).

I think discussion of 'real' motives is difficult. I`m curious what Freud thought of Kant.

[Truthiness231]

@calvinjones Very well said.... I'm going to have to think about that ^.^ (one thing that can be discerned from this: there is no simple rule to summarize morality; it's quite convoluted and changes drastically with scope)

[cholerymorbilus]

@Truthiness231 I'm curious about the negative side of that, which was brought up in reference to the spelling bee boy. If it is moral to do something for the joy of being good, shouldn't it also be moral to act out of the dread of being bad? It seems to me that neither of these feelings fall under the concept of "duty"-- which is where I think I disagree with Kant. No human acts out of duty-- everything is inclination. Being human, our inclinations are generally, luckily, similar.

[novikai]

@ErikNikolai Kant investigated a moral law as highest value of human being. To oversimplify such a things is foolishness.

[mochi1uv]

"Thanks for the tie, I will wear it in special occasions."

[Kenshin4321]

There is Truth's in the lie's and in those lie's there some truth's (^.^)

[NsaneNtheNbrane]

@18:45 There's no such thing as a "misleading truth". A true statement can only be misleading if it gives false implications, and an implied lie is still a lie.

@22:23 Couldn't you use the same reasoning to just blatantly lie? You could say that you have a duty to protect your friend's well-being, and your intent is to protect your friend, not to lie, even if that is the consequence of upholding duty.

[NsaneNtheNbrane]

What would Kant say if telling the truth was more difficult or risky than telling the lie, or there simply wasn't a way to tell a misleading truth in the situation? If my only options are to tell a direct and complete truth or tell a lie, don't I have a duty to save my friend at the expense of telling a lie?

@35:41 What Julian was saying was actually right on. There are immediate costs associated with making a contract, no matter how small...

[NsaneNtheNbrane]

...and making a contract only to break it a minute later makes those costs unnecessary, therefore harming the parties which bear the burden of those unnecessary costs, making it immoral.

[wrinkleypp]

All will is subject to our own passions. Even if you are willing for the "right" reasons. The right reasons are reflections of your pride, conditioning, conformity, education. Look at Kant, his moral behaviors are those that adhere to his own conceived system. That's his pride, a reflection of his self, not some pure reasoned objective realm.

[Internetizen02]

Our will is subject to "our own passions" if that is how we will. The will is able to make decisions contrary to how our passions may desire. You are not understanding autonomy. The right reasons (what is ethically correct) is based on pure reason not "pride, conditioning, conformity, education "as you phrase it.

Kant's "own conceived moral system" as you call it IS based on pure reason. This makes it objective.

[Internetizen02]

Another possible answer to the question of the murderer at the door is to refuse to answer and "slam the door in his face." This would also honour Categorical Imperative.

[tonne007]

According to Kant, if I'm doing a good thing because it serves my interest one way or the other, it doesn't satisfy the supreme principal of morality. If i was a store clerk and wanting to do the right thing by not short changing my customers, part of it is because I want to do the right thing, but we should disregard the fact that I am also doing it because i want to create a positive reputation for my store.

[Internetizen02]

If you are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, then you are still behaving ethically, but your behavior lacks moral worth.

Don't forget the concept of heteronomy. If the act has any portion of doing what is right because it is right, then that act has moral worth in proportion to acting on that basis.

[tonne007]

I have been waiting for this all week as well. lol

So far in the lectures I have found Immannuel Kant contrary and a little confusing. His distinctive views to the traditional concept of utilitarianism and morality makes him even more perplexing.