 Well, I'm on my way up. That's my goal. It's the top As a rational agent I have goals that's Part of what it means to be a rational agent and again for you know a major thing about rationality is To perform those actions that do not defeat the purpose or the goal of that action So it would be irrational For me to climb to the top of this by say I don't know trying to somersault Special with me it's never going to happen Okay, well remember for Kant Rationality is everything when it comes to morality And he has some yes, there's some pretty serious implications from this so One of these implications that constant, you know basically what constant trying to get at is you have to let people make their decisions and Be responsible and live with the consequences of their decisions Well a question really quickly is you know kind of why I mean this is real intuitive We you know we think something like this is true already We may not be to convince me may not need to be convinced of this But there's there's some reasoning behind it right for what what Kant's saying here is look you're a rational agent you have goals you try to achieve those goals and Anything that defeats the purpose of your actions, right? If you're performing an act to defeat the purpose of that act is a self irrational Now what does this mean well? Suppose you take Kant's opposite view or opposite of Kant's view and you say well You know I'm a rational agent, but I can thought I can interfere with other people's agency Kant would say that's irrational Because there's no real difference between the kind of thing you are and the kind of thing other rational agents are You're all rational agents. So if you interfere with rational decisions You are saying that Rationality is a self something to be interfered with. That's irrational. It defeats the purpose of being rational It defeats your purposes if you say it is fine for me to interfere with the decisions of rational agents you are Allowing yourself to be interfered with because by the way you're a rational agent So again Kant's pushing on this idea that rationality implies Universality if you are you know if you're performing an act you are willing that that act be made into universal law and That's just because you're a rational agent amongst the rest I'm gonna keep climbing to the top Please Don't stop me. This was this whole rationality thing amount to anyway. Well think about it this way When we were talking about the categorical imperative before and Kant's pushing this idea of rationality so What's going on? Well Think of it this way for Kant You're doing things every day You're making decisions and you are willing certain actions to take place Now think of every action you make as Generating a rule in a game And it generates a rule in a game and what this game means is that everybody can do and does What you do so I'm walking along this path and I In stopping occasionally To talk into a video camera If I can't this means that as a rational agent I have decided this so I've established this rule That everybody can do that, too Right. It is I am willing that everybody has the option to stop and occasionally on the trail as opposed to something like You know, I you know if I just kept walking on the trail never stopping never allowing any pause Right, that would be a different rule that was set into place Now since I've allowed myself to stop and pause on a trail I've established this rule And other people may also follow other people may stop and pause on the trail And this is this is this is kind of sort of what Kant is getting at with his idea behind a categorical imperative It's like when you act You're making a rule And you're making a rule for everybody else to follow And by the way You're going to be held to that rule, too That's part of what it means to be a rational agent. You're no different than everybody else So when you will something as a rational agent You're willing that you have to be Accountable to those rules, too So as rational agents we are not allowed to interfere with other people's decisions We're not allowed to stop people from making their decisions and doing what they want We have to let people live their lives And we really like this idea. We say it a lot, but Might have consequences that you don't foresee So first consequence of this is one we we typically like when it's applied to ourselves, right? First consequences is we can't use people as a means to our ends We have to treat them as an end in or themselves What what does this mean? Well? We are all rational agents That means you know if we try to interfere with somebody's rationality. We are desiring We are you know willing that our own rationality is interfered with And again your rationality of an act requires universalizability, right? They're universalized, right? It's you will an act you willing this rule into place Well and to will that you you know to will that other people may be used, right? That we may treat it like a means means that you're willing yourself To be a means and that's irrational it defeats the purpose of being rational Okay, so when we're talking about using people as a means Cons talking about manipulation Cons talking about lying Cons talking about even just persuading somebody To do what you want them to do But you know maybe a way to say not for the right reasons So as an example of using people as an end or our treating people as an end I should say now the idea is that you let them make the decision With you know the best knowledge and best desires that they can have So a lot of business exchanges are supposed to work this way I go into a restaurant and I order a tuna sandwich Now I am paying the person at the counter money for the tuna sandwich But that's part of their decision-making to accept that money and make the sandwich for me We've both made this decision. We both have goals in mind and our goals have aligned in this one action Me getting some food Their goal, you know to make a living and the goals have aligned To for this one action where I pay for a tuna sandwich and they make the tuna sandwich for me Now if I would to use somebody for my own ends I would You know the goals would not be aligned right or I would try to achieve the goal in a way that subverts their goals Right, so I'd walk into the store right walk into the restaurant ask for tuna sandwich Then making the tuna sandwich, and then I bolt I dine and dash Okay, I have subverted their goal Their goal is to make a living and I've cheated that purpose By you know letting them think or manipulating to think that I'm going to give them money for the tuna sandwich so we can't treat people as a means we have to If we're gonna act and we're gonna work with other people we have to work in a way Such that everybody gets what they want That's what it means to treat somebody as an end everybody gets what they want This is the the first consequence and you know a first implication of his view about respect for persons and we like this because we want to be respected as a person and we want our goals to be met but This means that you Have to also work and cooperate in a way that such that everybody else's goals are met And that's hard kidding. Everybody's goals to align. That's hard Well I'm sure everybody has heard of the golden rule and it pops up and across the planet across time actually and roughly You know it's treat others as you want to be treated and Cons theory cons idea behind respect for persons very much applies here treat others as You want to be treated Now since he has this notion about rationality And that we should you know where we're acting. We're setting these rules into place if we're gonna respect other people's Wishes other people's agency We have to treat them According to the rules that they establish So cons theory about respect for persons Pretty much implies treat others as you would want to be treated and And as the second part treat others as They treat you and this is where he gets into his talk about punishment right when we punish the criminal we treat the criminal as The criminal has treated others Because the criminal is a rational agent and has decided that as a rule that behavior is What should happen? So we should respect their wishes If somebody steals they are willing stealing as a rule So we should take their property As somebody is violent We're willing violence as a rule or excuse me. They are willing violence as a rule So they should be treated violently if we If somebody will murder They are willing killing Therefore they should die This is the idea behind a cons idea behind punishment That we are merely respecting their wishes When we punish them for their crimes and in a way, it's really not even punishment, right? We're just treating them as they want to be treated Now con you know somebody would say well hold on a second, right? No, no nobody who goes to jail for stealing ever wants to have their property or their time taken away from them Con would say sure they do That's what they willed as a rule. I mean they're a rational agent and all I'm doing Is respecting their wishes They have willed that stealing be a rule So we take from them And this this is an interesting position, right? It's not just the golden rule treat others as you would like to be treated But adds on the second part of that Treat others as they treat you