 Welcome to this lecture on aspects of Christian philosophy, this is a lecture number 23 and this lecture will focus on the following topics, we will discuss Immanuel Kant's Ethical Theory with a special focus on concepts like freedom, immortality which are treated as postulates of morality. But before we discuss these postulates actually there are more important things to be understood about Kant's philosophy. In continuation with what we have discussed in the previous lecture where we have analyzed we have examined the ideas of reason and we have seen that these ideas of reason are not cognitive, but they are constitutive and their relevance is more on morality. So that is what we have seen in the previous lecture. For example, these ideas of reasons like self, world and God and we have seen that pure reason itself cannot prove their reality, their reality is something which is if you venture into proving them then you end up with pointless metaphysics. This is what Kant has demonstrated when he has analyzed critic of pure reason. Now he is actually trying to prove trying to show that these ideas have relevance in a different realm and they are extremely important as far as man's moral life is concerned as far as ethics is concerned. So they are regulative and not constitutive and they add systematic unity and coherence to our experience. This is what Kant would say and also have practical importance. So they have practical importance. So in that sense you know they are related to morals in significant ways. So this is what we would be addressing in this lecture. So before we get into the central issues of this lecture, we will have an overview of Kant's moral philosophy. So Kant's moral philosophy is famous for its emphasis on deontological aspects of morality that is it emphasizes on duty. So it is a deontological moral theory and the rightness or wrongness of action does not depend on their consequences. So it is against consequentialism. Any approach to morality which stresses on consequentialism or consequences of an action in order to determine its moral worth is blatantly rejected by Immanuel Kant. So in that sense for instance he would reject utilitarianism or he would reject hedonism which says that a particular action is morally right if it leads to happiness or pleasure. What Kant says is that the moral worth of an action or whether an action is ethically right or not that does not depend on the consequences or that is unconditional. So this unconditionality is a very important aspect emphasized by Immanuel Kant in his ethical theory. An action is right he says if it is performed on the basis of our duty. So why duty? Why an action is right? Because it is my duty. Why duty? Duty for duty sake. So action should be performed for the sake of duty this is what Kant would argue for. The supreme principle of morality according to him is the categorical imperative which I will explain slightly later and this determines our moral duty. So there is something called an imperative which is categorical according to Kant and in order to explain what he means by this categorical imperative what Kant does is he makes a detail analysis of the various types of imperatives and distinguishes the categorical imperative from other types of imperatives like for example hypothetical imperative or a satorial imperatives. A categorical imperative is an unconditional command. So why there is no question of why it is my duty? Why should I follow duty? There is an answer given by Kant it is a very interesting answer Kant gives. What Kant says is that one has to follow one's duty because that is the only and that is the most rational alternative available for man. For rational creatures following the duty is the rational alternative. So that is the reason why duty is important. So since human beings are rational creatures it is very important for them to perform actions for the sake of duty. That is to follow reason and this is different from other two types of normative laws like hypothetical and satorial. And now for Kant before we actually start discussing about morality we should see the possibility of morality what ensures morality's possibility and Kant says that nature is impersonal or non-moral we cannot attribute we cannot derive anything from that because nature as such it is given to us is non-moral and impersonal and it exhibits an order which suggests the possibility of a great and benevolent designer a god. Because nature exhibits a magnificent order everything is well ordered in nature and there are certain principles which we sort of learn from this something which you have already seen in the previous lecture and it suggests a grand designer behind it but the problem is that again we have seen this in the previous lecture no knowledge about this god or this grand designer is possible as far as human beings are concerned its impossibility of metaphysics as a science has been conclusively asserted by Kant when he dealt with the critic of pure reason. Now attempts to establish morality on the basis of such metaphysical truths are ridiculed by Kant. Kant rather tells us that morality is very important and we need to show that morality is possible or it is important to prove that it is possible we can do that in a different way we cannot expect our metaphysical theories to supplement our moral assumptions. How the world functions is non-moral look for the realm of morals outside the realm of nature. So, one has to actually look into a different domain to really sanctify our moral assumptions. Morals must be independent of how the world functions there should be an element of unconditionality about morals this is what is so central to any deontological approach to morality. Because any deontological approach would assert that morality or moral low or moral principle whatever principle we employ should be unconditional it should not be depending on various circumstances or conditions or results or consequences there should be an element of unconditionality about morals and it should be universal and rational it cannot be there cannot be my morality and your morality. There cannot be different moralities for different individuals or different types of people or groups of people what we today understand as individualism or subjectivism in morals or even cultural relativism is not acceptable for Kant. Kant would stress on the universal features of morality it should be universal because it is rational and rationality is universally present it is something which makes man what man is and there cannot be different rationalities. Since that is universal moral low also should be unconditionally universal this is a quote from MacIntyre about Kant when he writes about Kant what MacIntyre says is Kant stands at one of the great dividing points in the history of ethics for perhaps the majority of later philosophical writers including many who are self-consciously anti-Kantian ethics is defined as a subject in Kantian terms. Many who have never heard of philosophy let alone of Kant morality is roughly what Kant said it was. So, very interesting observation those who are consciously anti-Kantian have to follow they followed some of the Kantian lines and those who have not even heard about morality or heard about Kant are roughly what Kant said morality is. So, Kant's ethics in that sense is very interesting very exciting domain to study the idea of necessary universal a priori moral knowledge about human behavior this is what Kant's ethics all about I repeat necessary universal a priori moral knowledge and when the emphasis is on a priori elements or a priori aspects what happens a priori knowledge thus does not depend on man's actual behavior. So, how human beings actually behave that does not matter that is irrelevant for Kant. Kant is as we have seen when it dealt with the problem of pure reason knowledge in natural sciences then again he was referring to the conditions the preconditions of all human knowledge similarly here also the stresses on the preconditions. So, it is not he does not is not bothered about or he is not interested in how human beings actually do behave he is rather looking for an a priori knowledge not knowledge of what is of how man actually behave what ought to be that is the stress there is a stress on ought not on is how man ought to behave. So, here Kant has a very definite answer men or human beings ought to behave for the sake of duty that is Kant's moral law examines the origin of the a priori elements in our moral knowledge and Kant envisages to discover what the a priori principles according to which we judge when we make moral judgments. So, to the a priori principles based on which we make our moral judgments what are those a priori principles they are rooted in reason and Kant says that they are rooted in practical reason there is a distinction Kant makes between pure reason and practical reason. So, that is very fundamental for Kant Kant's ethical theory that the rational faculty in man is divided into practical and pure. Pure reason we have already seen which deals with transcendental aesthetic analytic and dialectic here the practical reason deals with moral law the unconditional moral law the a priori elements of that moral law. Again to isolate the a priori and unchanging elements of morality to understand what form must be must a precept have if it is to be regarded or recognized as a moral precept to know the universal element in moral reasoning what is unconditionally good the categorical imperative versus hypothetical and esoteric imperative. So, I have been stressing on these aspects that it should be a priori it should be the universal it is a universal element in moral reasoning when human beings moral when human beings are engaged in moral reasoning what are the universal elements that determine the process of moral reasoning this is what Kant would be concentrating on. And here you know when you talk about the imperatives so this figure would identify the major two imperatives kinds of imperatives the first one is hypothetical which is obviously non moral which again can be divided into two problematical which says that good for a possible purpose. So, it is problematical and esoterial is good for actual purpose and a categorical imperative is fundamentally moral in nature and it is apodetic or it is necessary good with no reference to any purpose. So, this aspect of good is given a lot of importance in Kant's ethical theory the aspect of good why do you do good good for the sake of doing good or good with no reference to any other purpose or any circumstances any conditions any presuppositions any goals I do something I am performing a very good act say for example charity I am giving out a lot of money as charity for what sake I am doing it for the sake of publicity. So, I am doing it I am doing good definitely giving charity or being charitable is definitely good, but why do I do that I do that for the sake of getting fame and recognition in society then it is wrong in Kantian terms. But if I do it for the sake of really doing it for the sake of believing because I believe that it is my duty to help my fellow beings it is fundamental duty of human beings to see that his fellow human beings also prosper along with him. If I do it on the basis of this rational principle then it is my duty then it is ethically right. So, Kant would emphasize a lot on intentions behind an action hypothetical to elaborate this a little further it only holds for groups of people who under certain conditions have certain ends in view I am not going to the details of it because it is very clear an example would rather make it very clear the example for a hypothetical imperative would be this if I wish to score good marks in the examination then I should study well. So, for good marks I should study well it is conditional and as a tutorial imperative is everybody seeks certain desires certain sorry certain ends like happiness the hypothetical rules for attaining them are universally applicable yet they are conditional only hold because of the condition that people seek these ends. So, example rules which are to be observed in order to attain happiness are esoteric laws and Kant would not accept these type of rules as part of morality for him an ethical imperative is not esoteric in nature it is categorical in nature it is unconditional it does not depend on any factors other than its own making. So, hedonist on the other hand as I mentioned hedonist or utilitarians would affirm that the laws of morality are all esoteric because they lead to some consequences which are desirable, but Kant opposes them and Kant would assert the importance of categorical imperative it holds and conditionally and universally the moral law is the only law of this kind. So, once we examine what is this categorical imperative where can we look for such categorical meritives which are imperatives and conditionally and universally then there is only one domain they are available that is the moral domain that is the moral law they are absolute a priori rational and based on good will. So, now Kant is introducing another notion the notion of good will. So, now he is going to talk a lot about this concept good will that is rather going to occupy the central the core of Kantian ethics the notion of good will there is no ifs and buts as far as Kant categorical imperative are concerned that is unconditional why should I be honest you have to be honest that is your moral duty to be honest because it is ethically it is rational and it is there is no ifs and buts I cannot say that I will be honest if you are also honest that is not ethical that is a kind of hypothetical or it is a contract for Kant ethics or it is based on good will and which is nothing to do with conditions ifs and buts they do not depend on any of our purposes or goals not a teleological outlook. So, he denies all of teleological theories of ethics including that of Aristotle who advocates a very advanced form of teleological conception now let us come to this idea of good will since I mention that occupies a central role in Kantian theory of ethics the question is what is unconditionally good because Kantian moral theory seeks to understand this unconditionally good there is nothing in the world this is Kant Kant himself says I quote there is nothing in the world or even out of it that can be called good without qualification except a good will. So, the emphasis is here on the term good without qualifications good without conditions universally unconditionality all these aspects are emphasized when he introduced the term good will things which are intrinsically good are good even if they exist all alone that is why they are unconditional even if they do not result in say what for example the happiness of the person concerned who is performing the particular action still such actions are good because they are intrinsically good they are not good for the sake of something else their goodness depends on themselves the act itself is good what motives or intentions make the good will good duty alone. So, that is something which I am going to elaborate slightly later the aspect of duty can be elaborated by highlighting the importance of reason in Kantian framework. Now, again a little further the Kant's idea of good will health wealth intellect these are all things which we desire in our life and we consider all these things as good they are all goods to be pursued or we all desire to attain them, but Kant reminds us that they are all good only in so far as they are used well. So, there is a good will which is presupposed if it is if these things are not if the health is not used well or if wealth is not used in the proper way that can be disastrous. So, condition of goodness in such cases also ultimately point to the fact that there is a good will behind them all such good things contain good will as one element in their makeup this is what CD broad observes. So, they all contain a good will as an element in their makeup and again focus on the agents will motives and intentions as I already mentioned a lot of stress is on the agents intentions and motives. The good will is always unconditionally good with whatever accompaniments it is found whatever are the consequences of a particular action. If the action is performed with a good will behind it then that action is bound to be right kind of action according to Kant. Again gifts of fortune wealth talents I have already mentioned all this intelligence and worldly wisdom are good only on condition that they are used by a good will used by a bad will they result in greater evil. Even happiness is good only when it is the consequences of virtue and Kant claims that he is only making explicit at truth which is implicitly present in ordinary moral knowledge. So, this is why you know because of this aspect as Kant himself acknowledges is only trying to make explicit at truth which is implicitly present in ordinary moral knowledge. This is so much in tandem with our own moral assumptions our common sensical moral assumptions duty for and all these aspects are I mean we all take them for granted and we all know them but Kant is trying to make them explicit Kant is trying to argue for them and Kant is trying to tell us why they are important. And a good will is itself an intrinsically good hall it is good even when it exists quite alone if with its greatest efforts the good will should yet achieve nothing Kant says and there should remain only the good will then like a jewel it would still shine by its own light as a thing which has its whole value in itself. So, Kant's imagery is very peculiar here he says that the good will will shine like a jewel it does not matter whether it leads to good I mean desirable consequences or consequences which produces or which leads to happiness and pleasure does not matter the consequences does not they the consequences do not matter at all what matters is the good will can stand alone what makes a good will good now that is a very important question to be address now. He opposes consequentialism as it is evident we have already discussed this good will is neither hypothetical nor a tutorial moral law is categorical the absolute authority of moral law is underlined what makes willing right a good will what it is a good will good is that it must be done on a rational principle. So, now gradually Kant is trying to elaborate what he means by this. So, he has introduced a term good will and now he is trying to say what does he mean by that there he brings in this notion of rational principle it must be based on a rational principle and now Kant is going to formulate his categorical imperative and in the various formulations two or three formulations he gives and in these formulations he is basically trying to show us that there is a rational element present in it. The moral standard is a law of reason and man is fundamentally rational the universe where he finds himself is constructed on rational principle. So, it is essential for man to be rational to be following the rational principles rational laws here in this context we need to elaborate a little bit the aspect of duty and which actually figures in when Kant discusses the various aspects of practical reason vis-a-vis pure reason. So, practical reason is being introduced the notion of practical reason is introduced in order to account for morality or ethics Kant would say that a rational action alone is the right action. So, even if we perform an action out of say inclination I am going to discuss it not because I rationally it is a rationally thought out action, but it is just I just acted out of inclination that would become or that would not qualify to be called as a good action according to Kant very interesting in that sense for Kant to be good it should be rational. So, to prove that an action is right we have to prove that it is rational no contingent factor is relevant in assessing the moral worth of an action no reference to emotions circumstances or results are given which I have already discussed. So, it must be universally right same for every individual irrespective of taste inclination or circumstances and it is according to duty. So, rational action alone is a right action and these are the conditions universality unconditionality and dutifulness these are the three basic conditions of a good action. An action is in accordance to duty need not necessarily be the morally right action. So, there is a difference between action in accordance with duty and action which are done for the sake of duty. So, this is a very important distinction in Kantian philosophy or Kantian ethics there are actions which are done in accordance with duty like it is my duty say for example, as a teacher it is my duty to teach my students well it is my duty to dedicate a lot of time for their education and their well being everything is my and for that I have to work hard and deliver my lectures very well in the class. But say if I am doing it another intention I have something else in my mind see for example, if all the students go and tell others that this particular person is an excellent teacher he teaches very well and this news will reach my director this news will reach the management of the institute where I am working and naturally they would also start considering me as a precious jewel in the institute who should be retained in the institute. So, my intention is not the well being of my students here my intention is to get promotion or get recognition or gain lot of fame and recognition from my colleagues and others that is not a good intention according to Kant that is not part of my duty what is part of my duty is to teach well deliver well in the class and be concerned about the students or rather the students well being. But anyway I am doing it because my actions are in accordance with duty but these actions which are in accordance with duty are performed with a different intention. So, Kant would not consider it as moral or ethical so he would say that in order to be ethical an action should be done for the sake of duty so it is not in accordance with duty that matters but it is done for the sake of duty which matters. Actions in accordance with duty for certain goals and achieving certain ends I have already elaborated and for the sake of duty how to perform action duty for the sake of duty not based on any consequences whether I get a recognition or I get a promotion or gain a lot of fame and people will be talking about me all these things should not be my considerations when I deliver my duty as a teacher with the knowledge that it is one's duty not just because it is one's inclination to do good. See this is another aspect some people have a natural inclination to do good for example charity and I have a natural inclination to help others and I am just doing it because that is my feeling I am such kind of a person who is really worried about you know it is my inclination to do that but good inclination or altruism may lead one to do good and to do one's duty. So to help others is my duty as a human being but I am doing it I am helping others not because it is my duty not because I am aware of the fact that it is my duty or not because I am doing it for the sake of duty but it is my inclination just to be good just to help others is my inclination but can one accept it can one consider it as a moral action then this brings from inclination and duty versus inclination. So here comes a struggle between duty which is rational inclination which is more or less emotional and it is not based on any rational principle which is universally applicable and here can opposes or rather can is against conceiving or giving any room any important space for this aspect of inclination or physical and psychological nature determines our inclination we cannot choose our inclination this is can famous statement we cannot make we have no choice inclination are with which we are born so we can make a choice there we have to choose between our inclination and our duty. So we might be having good inclination or bad inclination the point is that inclination should not be the determining factor in performing actions what should be the determining factor duty for the sake of duty rational aspect. So it must be a rational choice obedience to low that is universally binding on all rational beings so directed towards choice in accordance with the moral low sorry. Now when we come to focus on reason and morality the important place reason has in determining morality or moral choices can says that no theoretical reason or pure reason which constitutes the object given in intuition but practical reason. So here he stresses on the idea of practical reason it is not pure theoretical reason it is practical reason and practical reason is what is present when we are engaged in moral reasoning. So practical or moral reason is concerned with the production of moral choices or decisions in accordance with the law which proceeds from them and it is directed towards choice in accordance with moral low which is universal. Practical reason according to Kant influences our will what is practical reason I have already mentioned it here practical or moral reason is concerned with the protection of moral choices or decisions in accordance with the law which proceeds from itself. So practical reason influences the will it moves the will by means of the moral imperative it identifies itself with the will and it makes the will a rational power practical reason rational will as the foundation of moral low. So this is the gist of what Kant talks about the nature of moral will and is elaborating its rational nature he says that it is identified with the will or it identifies itself with the will it makes the will a rational power and a practical reason or rational will as the foundation of moral low. Now we come to discuss these things good will duty and the moral low. So what is a good will or what is a duty what is their inter-relationship. So Kant says that a good will is manifested in acting for the sake of duty. So duty is something which I already mentioned it is based on a rational principle our duties are determined on the basis of reason and not just acting out of mere inclination or desire as we have already seen duty is the necessity of acting out of reverence for the universal moral low. So there is a universal moral low and one has to act in reverence to for that universal low you have to respect that universal low and regulate one's actions according to that universal. So you are actually when you are beautiful you are following the universal moral low which is a universal moral low it is acting in accordance with the universal low which does not admit of exceptions. Because universal lows are unconditional they are applicable for everyone all times everywhere and rational beings alone are capable of acting in accordance with the idea of low. So this is what makes rational human beings different from other creatures many other creatures they all for I mean some of the lows are followed by every one of us see natural lows some of these natural lows we all follow whether we like it or not we follow them. But there is a universal rational moral low which human beings alone are capable of following human beings alone are capable of knowing it and following it. So that is the kind of low which Kant stresses when he talks about the moral low how to act for the sake of duty so that is the question we have to understand here we have to distinguish between a principle and a maxim. So principles and maxims are different we will just have a brief look at it a principle is a fundamental objective moral low which is the principle on the base of which we act they are the regulating forces rational regulating force behind all our actions. And it is grounded in practical reason as I have already pointed out practical reason is that universal rational aspect which makes a particular action or duty a principle on which all men would act if they were purely rational moral agents no other considerations no other circumstances and factors matter here at all that is the principle on which all of us act so long as we are rational creatures on the other hand what is a maxim? A maxim is a subjective principle of volition on a particular instance say for example on a particular occasion I am expected to make a decision. So I make a choice based on a maxim the question is that whether the choice which I made on the basis of a maxim is in accordance with the universal principle moral low that is a question that is how we decide or that is how we evaluate the moral worth of a particular action whether a particular act or a particular decision choice is moral or not is ethical or not is decided like this. So subjective principle of volition a principle on which an agent acts as a matter of fact and which determines his decisions and may or may not accord with the objective principle of the moral low. So sometimes it may accord with the objective principle of the moral low or sometimes it may not when it accords with it is morally right and when it does not accord with it is morally wrong when you talk about a moral low all of our actions have moral worth only if they are performed out of reverence for the low. So this is again not just it is my desire not just it is my strong inclination to do good but if I have consciously done this action if I have consciously performed this action in reference for the low for the universal low. So can makes a very curious condition that an action is morally right only if it is a result of a conscious choice made by the agent. So the ability of an agent to make conscious choices is pre-supposed in Kantian scheme of ethics just because it follows duty it is in accordance with duty will not make a particular action morally right. What makes it right is whether the agent has consciously chosen it in such a way that it follows the duty the principle of duty which is the moral low which is universal and unconditional. So can does a very uncompromising rationalist idealist thinker in that sense when it comes to morality acting out of reverence for low is duty what is duty this is probably a kind of explanation given to what duty is acting out of reverence for low for that universal moral low is duty. And moral low is the form of an imperative it is a command the strength of Kantian ethical theories this can conceives the moral low as a command as an imperative as an unconditional command. The practical reason commands and it is our duty to overcome the desires or any other inclinations which conflict these commands which are based on choices or which are based on rational choices which are based on choices which are in accordance with the universal moral low. Now, again we act according to maxims subjetive principles of volition I have already mentioned this a good will when it acts is motivated by respect or reverence for universal low this is a repetition actually because I just want to underline this factor a good will is motivated by respect for universal low for the will to be morally good we should will that our maxims should become universal low from this point what follows is Kant's formulation of the categorical imperative maxims that cannot become universal laws need to be rejected. So moral worth of actions are determined by the agents maxim the maxim is as I mentioned the subjetive principles of volition based on which we perform our actual actions. Now, the moral worth of an action depends on the agents or it is determined by the agents maxim to be morally worthy a maxim needs to be in accord with the moral low it must not refer to any objects of sensuous desire if the actions governed by the maxim obeys the universal moral low then it will have moral worth it is then for the sake of duty. So, the distinction which I have mentioned sometime back actions accordance with duty and actions which are for the sake of duty. So, Kant would say that the actions for the sake of duty such actions exhibit a reverence for the moral universal moral low. Now, the problem is objective principles of morality need not always govern our actions discrepancy between the objective principles of morality and man's maxim of subjective principle of volition we sometimes act on maxims or subjective principles of volition which are incompatible with the objective principles of morality. So, what will happen on such occasions the will does not necessarily follow the dictate of reason. And in this case to solve this problem or to find a solution to this problem Kant provides the formulations of the categorical imperative formulated in three different ways. The three different ways I am trying to summarize in one slide here the universal low formulation which argues that which says the following act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal low. So, it is called universal low formulation the stress is on universal low that your maxim should be a universal low which means that should be applicable to you as well. Then again humanity as end in itself formulation that is a second formulation act in such a way that you always treat humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other never simply as a means, but always as an end. So, everything treat others and oneself as an end in itself not as just a means for another end not just as a tune. So, you respect the personality of people including yourself and the third one is kingdom of ends formulation which says that all maxims as proceeding from our own hypothetical making of low or to harmonize with a possible kingdom of ends. So, these are the three formulations I will just have a very brief explanation of these formulations the first form of the categorical imperative act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal low act as if the maxim of your action where to become through your will a universal low of nature that is another way to formulate it. And the test of the rightness of an action depends on whether we are prepared that everybody else should adopt the rule on which we did the action as his own rule of action. So, if I take money from you and do not return it now to decide whether this action is right or wrong I should ask the same question on what principle did I make this choice did I act whether the other person can also adopt that principle when he takes money from me and refuses to return is it acceptable for me if it is not acceptable for me then I should not perform it then it is a contradiction it is a matter of avoiding inconsistencies because it is a question of following a universal moral low which is unconditional which is applicable to everyone including yourself. And if you say that you are an exception to that low then you are actually encountering an inconsistency it is logically inconsistent to adopt a moral principle for ourselves and to refuse to adopt the same principle for other people. So, as rational beings we need to reject what is logically inconsistent. So, example it is inconsistent to refuse to repay borrowed money as the institution of money lending could not go on if everybody refuse to pay his debts. So, can this again trying to rationalize it universalize it and trying to prove that his theory is based on reason. Now, when it comes to humanity as an end in itself treat every rational being including yourself always and senate and never as a mere means never use a rational being as a mere means as though he had no value in himself except as a means to my subjective end. So, never treat other human beings as a tool as a mere tool respect the individuality of every person humanity is an end in itself. And this formulation has three aspects one is you should treat yourself also has a person. So, suicide for example is when you annihilate yourself which is also inconsistent because here what happens is that the person who commits suicide what he does is one uses oneself a person as a mere means to the end what is the end here which is the maintenance of tolerable conditions up to the end of life. So, that is the end to attain that end one uses oneself as a means and ends one's life which is ethically wrong because it is logically and rationally inconsistent. And the man who makes a promise to another one to in order to get such things done, but does not keep it make the other person a mere means. Let us now come to what can be termed as the most important aspect of Kantian ethical theory the postulates of practical reason because can believe that there are three fundamental postulates of ethics the three fundamental postulates of practical reason without which morality is impossible we cannot consume morality they are freedom immortality of the soul and God. So, these three principles which earlier we have seen that these principles cannot be proved their existence cannot be proved the postulates are ideas that transcend the limitations of reason in its theoretical use though practical use of reason or practical reason cannot really prove the existence of these things like immortality of the soul or God or freedom we have already seen it they might take us to antinomies, but they are regulating our postulates of reason in its practical or moral use. And when it comes to the first postulates which is probably a very important one or the most important one we can even say arguably the idea of freedom is a practical necessity no theoretical proof for freedom is possible we have already seen that and we cannot also say that freedom is not possible. So, Kant says we cannot prove theoretically we cannot prove freedom, but at the same time we cannot provide a proof which for arguing that freedom is not possible then the condition of the possibility of a categorical imperative is to be found in the idea of freedom. If there is no freedom then there is no unconditionally following a law a moral principle in order to follow a moral principle it is presupposed that I can follow it if I cannot follow it then it is pointless to say that I should follow it or I ought to follow it. So, Kant says that without freedom we cannot act morally for the sake of duty and ought presupposes a can first of all I should be able to follow it only then someone else can tell me that you ought to follow that. So, absolutely freedom is no doubt a most important postulate moral obligation presupposes that we have the freedom to obey or disobey the law and we can make universal laws only if we are free practical reason must regard itself as free. Categorical imperative presupposes the idea of freedom and a practical necessity for the moral agent. So, without this notion of freedom there is no conception of moral agency possible. The notion of moral agency is possible because we are all moral agents because we are all free if we are not free then we cannot be treated as agents who are capable of making rational choices independent of the influence of other people. If that is impossible then one cannot tell me that I ought have done that or one cannot morally evaluate my actions because I have no choice I can always say that I have no choice that was the only choice available only when there are choices available the whole idea of rationally making a choice becomes relevant. And for Kant this notion of rationally making a choice is associated with the concept of duty only a rational duty is once rational choice. And now when it comes to immortality which is again a very interesting principle moral law commands us to pursue virtue. Virtue consist in being in complete accordance of will and feeling with moral law. Moral law which is universal and conditional and virtue consist in being in complete accordance with of will and feeling with moral law. This complete accordance of its perfection this complete accordance of will and feeling with the moral law is possible only for a perfect being and such a perfection is almost impossible to achieve in one life span. So, the perfect good must be realized in the form of an indefinite unending progress towards the ideal. And this suggests that this endless progress presupposes the unending duration of the existence of the same rational being. This is immortality of the salt a postulate of the pure practical reason not demonstrable by reason in its theoretical use, but to deny immortality is to deny moral law because then this notion of following virtue cannot be explained. Now, the third postulate which is existence of God moral law demands that virtue and happiness are necessarily connected a priori. And happiness is a state of a rational being in the world with whom in the totality of his existence everything goes according to his wish and will. So, this is Kant's definition of happiness very interesting and very peculiar definition. I repeat happiness is the state of a rational being in the world with whom in the totality of his existence everything goes according to his wish and will and a harmony of physical nature with man's wish and will. This is what the condition of happiness demands which is actually the a priori synthetic connection between virtue and happiness. Happiness ought to follow and be proportioned to virtue for this we must postulate the existence of a cause of the whole nature. And this cause is God who is distinct from nature it contains the ground of the connection of happiness with morality. So, God here is being introduced as a logical condition for the a priori synthetic connection between virtue and happiness without that you cannot explain this kind of an a priori synthetic connection. Now, God apportions happiness to morality according to the conception of the universal law happiness is to be apportioned to morality. So, for that you need a principle a God and the omniscient omnipotent God who is the cause of nature is conceived as capable of bringing into existence a world in which happiness is exactly proportioned to virtue. So, it is not something which theoretical reason can prove, but something which practical reason necessitates or presuppose. So, we will conclude here with a very brief evaluation of this and it comes to postulates of morality as I have already said all the three proceed from the principles of morality which is a law which is a universal unconditional law and they extend our knowledge from a practical point of view. So, they are postulates of practical reason they cannot be proved theoretically pure reason cannot prove them and there are several problems which this ethical theory of Kant encounters. One of them is that the deontological ethics rejection of the consequentialist approaches it too formalistic and abstract it stresses on a priori conditions difficult to deal with choices made in practical life. So, Kant seems to be telling us that before we make a choice in our day to day practical life we should think in mind or we should rationally assess whether this choice we make is in accordance to the universal law or not. So, every human being practically or theoretically needs to know what the universal law is. So, it is too formalistic I mean on most occasions in our day to day life we make choices instantly we may have to make instant choices and on each occasion if we have supposed to see examine whether it is in accordance with the universal moral law it is a too much of a condition. And another thing is the distinction which Kant makes between duty and inclination just because a particular action follows duty thus will not make it a right action according to Kant. So, two people two human beings performing their duty one A for example, person A performs it because that is his inclination person B performs his duty because he rationally knows that it is his duty and rationally takes a decision makes a choice to perform his actions for the sake of duty. So, though both of them have performed their duty Kant would say that A's action is not ethically right or need not be ethically right because it has sprung from inclination on the other hand B's action is rational. So, it is morally right this kind of a distinction introduces a lot of confusion and dilemmas in our life. Practical reason demands the postulates which cannot be proved again on the one hand theoretical reason asserts that it is impossible to prove the existence of these postulates, but practical reasons demands that they exist, but does not provide any proof for it. In what sense are they rational one can raise the question what you mean by rationality what you mean by practical reason in this sense they cannot be proved a person can say that I am quite rational and that is the reason why I am unable to accept the validity of these postulates. So, these are some of the problems which Kant encounters the most important problem I have already mentioned in the beginning is that with the division of practical reason from pure reason Kant introduces a fragmentation of human rational faculty which has severe consequences in philosophy as well as in intellectual culture and civilization. So, Kant himself recognizes this and attempts to provide a solution with the conception of a third critic the critic of aesthetic judgment which tries to unite the fragmented rational faculties in man that is not the part of this lecture. So, we will wind up here now and the next lecture will be focusing on Hegel's contribution. Thank you.