So as you can probably tell by now, I like making these videos in Friedrich Wilderness Park. It's a very nice park, and also it's, you know, kind of close by, so it's convenient in some ways. And one of the reasons why Friedrich Wilderness Park is is a nice park is because they have several rules in place. For instance, there are no bikes allowed in Friedrich Wilderness Park.
All use of the park is by foot only. So you're either walking or you're running but you're not biking. bicycling, you're not mountain biking, you're not skateboarding, although it's probably not possible to skateboard on these rough roads, rough trails.
But Friedrich has this rule in place where you are only walking or running on the trails, only foot traffic on the trails. Another rule they have in place is no pets. Pets aren't allowed in Friedrich Wilderness Park and this helps with some of the upkeep. Another rule that's in place is that that you do not deviate from the trail.
There is no… So, you know, we have the trail here in Friedrich Wilden's Park and you can walk on that, but you can't leave the trail. So you couldn't… You know, the exit is roughly in that direction. If I wanted to make a quick exit, I wouldn't be allowed to just trample on down through.
I'd have to stay on the trail to make my way back. So a question comes up as to whether morality is like this. Is morality a set of these absolute rules?
And by absolute rule, it's meant this exceptionless rule. The rule is in place and there's no way you can deviate from that. Are there moral absolutes? So one way to start thinking about these moral absolutes is actually to think in terms of rationality. And this is what Immanuel Kant is doing.
Kant was a real big fan of rationality. Maybe a little too much in some ways. actually if you read some of Kant's works.
So one of the things that Kant noted about rationality is that actions have purposes. So I'm here and I'm in this park and I'm talking to a video camera and hopefully Hopefully you're listening to the product of the video camera later on. But I have a purpose here.
The purpose here is not merely just to walk through the park. Alright, my purpose is to try to explain some of the concepts involved in the text that we're reading. Some of the concepts involved in ethical theory.
Now it might seem a little weird that I'm actually in the park doing that, but there's a chain of reasoning, right? Lectures don't really seem to work anymore because... You know, because lectures are difficult to listen to and they're boring. So I have class time instead, yet I still have to provide an explanation for the material. Well, I'm not going to do that in the classroom, so I have to do it outside the classroom.
The best way to do it outside the classroom is to use a video. And I could have the video just say in some bland room and, you know, write things on the board, but, you know, this is more visually pleasing. Right? So there's a little more, I'm not saying that my videos are ever going to win.
any Oscars, but this is at least a little more visually pleasing and interesting than just a blank wall with me just talking. So that's my purpose for being out here is, weirdly enough, I'm walking in the park to explain philosophy to my students. And believe me, passerbys who wonder what I'm doing get that explanation and I get some puzzled looks.
So every action has a purpose. And it's irrational to take on an action that defeats the purpose. Now you may not know exactly what I mean, but this takes several different... of expressions in our everyday lives.
So for instance, suppose my purpose is to be healthy. I want to lower my heart rate, I want to decrease my body mass index, I want to increase my strength and increase my endurance. So that's my purpose in mind. And the way to do that, the way I'm going to achieve this purpose is to eat potato chips, watch Netflix and sit on a couch. That's just weird, right?
That's at best irrational. Somebody who's trying to be healthy doing that is either deeply mistaken or probably doesn't really want to be healthy. This is a major idea behind rationality is that you...
Do not perform actions that defeat the purpose of performing the action. So, you know, to be healthy, you exercise. You adjust your diet. So, you decrease fats and solids and you have a certain ratio of protein to carbohydrates and you get a certain amount of... of vitamins and minerals.
This is what you need to do to be healthy. So, this first step in trying to understand absolute moral rules for Kant is first to understand rationality. And a big part of this is you do not perform actions that defeat the purpose for performing the action. So the first step in understanding Kant's little puzzle about absolute moral laws is this notion about rationality.
You don't perform actions that defeat the purpose for performing the action. So this leads to different kinds of imperatives. An imperative is just a command.
Sit down in your seat. I give you several imperatives when you walk in the classroom. Turn in your video quiz, take out your notes, and make sure you watch the video for next time. These are all imperatives for you to follow. follow.
So Kant starts describing at least two different kinds of imperatives. The first imperative is called a hypothetical imperative. And this is very closely linked to this idea of rationality.
So a hypothetical imperative is something like, you know, if you want exercise, then you can bicycle, or you can run, or you can play a sport. So a hypothetical imperative is, you know, given some kind of, given some kind of goal, given some kind of desire, or given, you know, some kind of, you know, need or want, right, you take a particular course of action to it. achieve that goal. So if you want to get a good grade, then you read the book, you take notes, you comprehend, and you take all the tests. This would be a hypothetical imperative.
Other hypothetical imperatives, if you… Oh, I don't know. If you want to listen to music, turn on the radio. That's kind of a simple one.
If you want to learn more... about the world, then start reading. These are hypothetical imperatives. And the idea of rationality applies here because we're given a certain desire, a certain goal, and a course of action to achieve that desire or goal.
If your course of action defeats the purpose of that goal, it's irrational and it's not a hypothetical imperative in that case. So we have the hypothetical imperative and then we have the categorical imperative. Whereas the hypothetical imperative is a course of action given some kind of desire or goal, a categorical imperative is a course of action you should take regardless of any desire or goal. This is what you do no matter what you want to do.
So, the way Kant is trying to tie this in with rationality is, again, he's still trying to appeal to this idea of avoiding self-defeating actions. So, whereas hypothetical imperatives would give you a specific course of action for a goal, the categorical imperatives would be more general. It's, you know, it might be a hypothetical imperative to say, well, if you want to exercise and you enjoy water, then you should swim. But that wouldn't be a categorical imperative.
It's just simply not the case that everybody should swim given whatever they want to do. The categorical imperative is different. It's trying to apply courses of action across all desires, across all kinds of desires.
all goals, across all wants, across all needs. And this would be your moral framework. These are the things that you should do or, you know, should not do.
There are things that you shouldn't do with some of the categorical imperatives in order to achieve what you want. Now Kant has, you know, that's the idea that Kant has in mind about the categorical imperative. And so far, so far it seems okay.
I mean this doesn't, none of it seems really weird at this point until we start asking the question of what are the categorical imperatives. And even more importantly, how do we figure out what the categorical imperatives are? So Kant's idea here is to say, look. The Categorical Imperatives are going to be those rules or laws that you put in place and you be willing That everybody would follow the same rules or laws. So, it's those rules and laws that you put into place, such that you be willing that everybody follow the same rules or laws.
And what he's trying to get at here is, if your course of action is one of those kinds of courses of action such that if everybody did it, then nobody could do it, or nobody could get what they want doing it, then you can't take that course of action. So, this actually has some kind of shades of social contract theory in the background, right? Instead of multiple rational agents making these decisions, it's, you know, one person making these decisions.
So that, you know, there's some real close tie here. And the close tie is we're dealing with rationality. And we're dealing with putting laws in place such that everybody would be following these laws. So his example is lying.
Here's Kant's idea about lying, you know, he thinks it's a categorical imperative that you should never lie. You should always tell the truth. Well, what is this supposed to mean? Or why would he think that this is a categorical imperative?
He says, look, if everybody lied, then nobody could get anything done by lying. Why does he reach that conclusion? Well, imagine you lived in a world in which everybody lied. I know it kind of seems that way sometimes.
But in fact, in our world, people tell the truth more often than you think. But, you know, even look at that situation where you're looking at it to our world and you notice that people are lying and you know they're lying. Right?
It's just obvious that they're lying. You don't believe those people. You don't want to listen to them.
You don't want to follow whatever they have to say. You don't want to believe them. believe whatever they're trying to convince you of.
Well Kant's pushing on this. Imagine if everybody were lying. If everybody were lying, then nobody would believe anybody else. Nobody would believe anybody else.
We have all these problems of people not believing each other. In fact, you wonder if you could get anything done. Because if everybody's lying, somewhere along the way, one person's trying to teach another person language, but they're lying the whole time, you can't even teach a person language.
So Kant's point here with the categorical imperative is that these are the imperatives, these are the rules or maxims that you put in place that you be willing that everybody follows those same rules. Now universal maxim is just a fancy way of saying a law that you would want everybody to follow. You know, if you could you'd have everybody follow this law.
So this is the categorical, so this is how Kant thinks you're going to find the categorical imperative. So the super comparative. Those imperatives you follow no matter what desire, no matter what your goal is.
They're suited for all goals and for all desires. And the way that Kant thinks you're going to find this is by trying to figure out which rules or laws that you would have in place such that everybody would follow those rules and laws. So it's kind of at issue with a lot of these absolute moral laws to begin with, is the question of exceptions.
Right? We tend to think that there are exceptions to a lot of rules, if not all of them. So, for instance, I'm here in Friedrich Wilderness Park and one of the laws is that I do not deviate from the path. Okay. That's a rule.
Now is this exceptionless? Meaning is there any time where I can deviate from the path? Well, we tend to think that there are. Suppose the worst happens and Friedrich is ignited on fire and I've got to make my way as fast as possible to the exit. Well, you know, I think I'm pretty sure right now.
the exit is directly that-a-way. But there's a whole roundabout way with the trails to get back to the exit. It's like, well, you know, if the place is on fire, then yeah, I should forget the rules about following the trail.
I should bug out across the field, blaze my own trail before the blaze catches me. Well, we tend to think this way about a lot of the absolute moral laws that are given to us. So, even just looking at Kant's example, with Kant saying, you should always, always, always tell the truth. Because this is just part of what rationality is. You should put into place those rules that you would have everybody follow.
Well, some questions come up pretty fast. You know, so somebody might say, you know, So here's Kant and he says, you should always tell the truth. And then somebody else asks, really? Always? There aren't any situations in which I can lie?
And Kant says, no. There are no situations in which you can lie. Because if you had everybody lie, then nobody would believe anything. And the objector pushes the point even further. Say, look, I think there's some really good instances in which I should lie.
If I'm at home and my next door neighbor knocks on my door frantically, I open up the door, they run in, they say, I'm being chased by a murderer. I need to hide in your apartment. And then you go hide your friend in the apartment.
You say, put him in the closet. And you're waiting. Then you hear another knock on the door. And a murderer. The murderer asks, you know, you open the door and the murderer is there, the murderer is holding a knife and says, I'm here to murder your next door neighbor.
Where is your next door neighbor? Would you really tell the truth in that situation? Kant would say, sure. You really tell the truth in that situation.
Because it's, you can't will lying as a universal maxim. To which the objector says, you know, I think it's a good idea to lie in that case. Because.
Because I need to protect the life of my friend. Now it's hard to see what Kant's reply really could be here. I mean, maybe he's saying, well, you're being irrational.
But this tends to be a case where the prohibition against lying really falls flat. And in fact, we lie to each other an awful lot for a wide variety of reasons besides protecting life. Sometimes it's to protect feelings.
Sometimes it's to, you know, just, you know, sometimes there's lying that happens in debates where you just, you say, okay, you know, you say fine. You just kind of agree to a point for the sake of not having to argue for something, even further. Um, we lie quite a lot and it's just as a way to, you know, grease the social wheels. At least in America we do.
It's going to be, I think it's going to be different across other cultures. So this is really kind of a pushing point against Kant's idea that lying is a categorical imperative. That lying is always, always, always immoral.
Well, at this point it seems like Kant might have gotten himself stuck. On the one hand he wants to have these absolute moral laws, and with this example of lying it looks like he really gets himself into trouble. What's going on here?
Well, one way to approach this is to say, since lying won't work as an absolute moral law. then there are no moral laws. Well, that's probably a really bad argument because there are other suggestions for what an absolute moral law should be. Now, another strategy to take is to say, look, when we're talking about this, this case of lying, there are going to be exceptions to the lying case. And we can start looking at other cases too, say something like killing.
Normally we say you shouldn't kill, but we think that there are exceptions to this rule. So in cases of self-defense or some people think of cases of capital punishment. So a suggestion here then, while this is not a deductive proof, a suggestion here is that there's always going to be an exception to whatever absolute law you can think of.
Well, this would be the first objection to any kind of absolute moral laws, is that there's always going to be an exception. Now, maybe we can still, maybe Kant can still dig himself out of this pit. Another problem that pops up when considering absolute moral laws is the problem that moral laws seem to conflict, at least sometimes.
So just in the case that we're talking about regarding lying, you know, you're talking about the fact that you're You know, there seem to be two absolute moral laws in conflict. We say, you should never lie, you should always be honest. On the other hand, we also say you should protect other people, right?
Or you should protect life. Well, it looks like you can't do both in the situation of, you know, this murderer who's running to the house. Because it looks like you're either going to violate one, you're either going to lie and protect the life of your next door neighbor, or you're going to tell the truth. Tell the truth and, you know, let your neighbor get killed.
So these are two apparent problems with this idea of absolute moral laws. The problem of the exceptions to the laws and the problems of the conflicts. Now...
Before we, you know, throw caution to the wind and say, there are no absolute moral laws, therefore we can do whatever we want, yay! No, no, no, no, no, no. That doesn't follow. I mean, look what's happening when we're talking about these problems with the absolute moral laws. I mean, one problem is the exception.
and another problem is the conflicting moral laws. Now, in both of those cases, there still is a clear course of action that you should take. Namely, you should lie.
You should lie and protect your friend. Now, we don't think that should change. change, right? We don't think that it's permissible in the case of the inquiring murderer that it's okay to tell the truth. In a sense, you know, there's… you know, that's inviolable.
So the suggestion here, as far as Rachel is concerned is, you know, we still have good moral reasons, right? And these reasons are not relativistic. They're good moral reasons.
And these reasons are always going to apply. In fact, you know, they apply in one case, then they're going to apply in all relevantly similar cases too. So, you know, if we are dealing with this, with these good moral reasons, then we're dealing with consistency. And you should always have consistency. And since we're also dealing with consistency, and we're not dealing with these, you know, like real exceptions all the time, What he thinks falls from that is also impartiality.
We should also consider everybody's interest to be equally important. So he still wants to hold on to this minimum conception of morality that he talked about in the first chapter. Even though these absolute moral laws like do not lie don't really seem to work on their own, there's still going to be a demand for consistency and impartiality. So you might wonder whether this is really a problem with talking about absolutes of any kind, or is this just a problem with absolutes of like really simplistic kinds? We'll talk about that in class.