I guess so every Const today I'll take could an excerpt from the groundwork for the metaphysical morals and one thing that I will have to say about this since from the onset I forgot how influential can't really was for me especially early on setting philosophy is quickly one of the philosophers that I gravitated towards in undergrad and you know I did it much more since survivin to him when I was doing graduate work but it's been like three years now since I really started to study Khan in death and I kind of just forgot how much of my ethics have been rooted in a lot of like what he talks about here now this doesn't mean that necessarily I adhere to you know down geological ethics and all that a lot of this framework for morality is something that I do see having been influenced by him so that's going to show some of my bias here so take with that what you will understand that there's gonna be some bias here again I don't hold necessarily to de ontology but a lot of his framework is something that I do hold the other thing I'll say too is he's very difficult to understand I mean a lot of philosophers today debate about what Kant actually means about some things so if you can start to understand this you are in good shape for studying philosophy both an undergrad and even and graduate level work this is about as tough as you can get so with that I am sorry if it's hard to understand but also like hopefully through my explaining things here you'll have a better sense of what is actually going on the cons talking about and I mean that's just a big leg for inside philosophy but yeah so I had Joe begin by reading that like one page bottom of 787 top of 788 and I did want to read an excerpt from it here this one 1788 when my maximum is not Universal izybelle it reveals my aims that my aim conflicts with my treating myself as one rational agent among others living in the community of equals governed by law so this is about you know where covered a lot of data logical ethics and the categorical imperative even on was that Thursday time is slowly slipping away from me as I'm sure it is for you all but yeah so on Thursday we covered you know this whole idea about the categorical imperative and you know that you can only will something that you would will for everybody to follow up right and so he's saying when I do something that I cannot universalize what I am innocence doing is I'm not treating myself as one of many right I'm not treating myself as one rational agent amongst many others and said I'm considering myself an exception to the rule or something of that nature and so I think that really drives home the point of how down to London it's really intended to work right when I say well I go it's fine for me to do it but not FriendFeed to do that I'm going against my reason and I'm not treating myself as a rational agent or one that belongs to the group of rational agents and then talks about two ways to a category categorical imperative the first is a universal law formulation which says that one should act only in accordance with that Maxim through which one can at the same time will it become a universal law so do the thing that you think yeah it's okay for everybody to do this thing right that if I think well it's fine for me but not for you that's not something that we can really act upon because that's going against reason and then the humanity formulation of the categorical imperative but the one should act so that you use humanity whether in your own person or in the person of any other always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means so ends and means our stuff talked about a little bit later on that's an important thing to know in distinguished and cons groundwork so with that let's begin of my notes right here so part of me while I check them so yeah at the beginning he talks about the significance of a law must hold for all rational beings and so because I must hold for all rational beings and this whole with absolute necessity when we talk about things like universalizability objectivity neccessity it must be something that we don't acquire through experience but by reason or re remember there's a priori a posteriori I'm prior and you know post or after so aa posteriori informational gather through experience and opera or information and stuff that we gathered through a reason alone I think we talked about that a couple months ago but it had a while to take that as a refresher also amano 801 he says that you cannot learn from morality from examples it is their understanding of morality that allows us to judge examples of it so we can't say well you know we know what good is because we see this person doing good right that to even say that you have to be judging that example based upon what you already understand goodness to be and so instead it is through reason alone is a priori that we can understand what is good so it's a purity of origin in quotes hears he's quoted here saying that every time I'm adding anything empirical to them one takes away as much from their genuine influence so by essentially giving a an analogy or showing an example or something we're actually taking away from the purity of what is a true morality all right so moving on to page 802 there's a quote here where he says everything in nature works according to laws and only a rational being has a capacity to act according to the representation of laws I according to principles or a will and the will is a practical reason meaning that it has the ability to derive actions from laws so everything in nature works according to laws and only a rational being has a capacity to act according to the representation of laws meaning that were the only ones that can reason from laws in order to act so this is going to be according to principles or a will so what he talks about when he's talking about our will it's just practical reason practical meaning would it causes us to act right practice so it's a reasoning our will is practical reasoning that is are deciding or acting on loss of morality in this case or of Reason which love Wazza morality is reason and so it's through this that we can actually decide our actions I hope that makes sense I kind of stuttered there a little bit so we're basically you'd be able to derive actions from these laws in other since we're able to move ourselves to act based upon morality which is calling these universal laws or rational laws so then maybe to clarify things a little bit more here's this excerpt right here from 802 if reason determines will without fail then the actions of such a being that are recognized as objectively necessary are also subjectively necessary meaning the will is a capacity to choose only that which reason independently of inclination recognizes as practically necessary or as good so it's important to note here that goodness is that which is subscribed to by reason so if something is good it is rational for us to do that thing if however reasons all by itself reason all by itself does not sufficiently determine the will if it is also subject to subjective conditions or to certain incentives that are not always in agreement the objective ones in a word if the will does not in itself completely conform with reason as is actually the case with human beings then act is objectively recognized as necessary are subjectively contingent and the determination of such a will in conformity with the objective laws is necessitated I either relation of objective laws to will not altogether good is represented a determination of the will of a rational being by grounds of reason to which the will is not however according to its nature necessarily obedient though this is a lot of words again like it's kind of hard to parse out but essentially what he's saying here is look if we were strictly just following pure reason right if we were just following goodness then we would always do what is good um but we have these other motivating factors things that also move us not just our good will meaning the thing that follows the laws of morality but there's other inclinations that he calls them that we have so um you know let's take a stealing money right I know that it's tongue because I reasoned I as a rational agent able to reason and understand that it breaks the laws of morality in this case because of the categorical imperative like I can't wish for everybody to start stealing there's other inclination I have which are these subjective so objectively you know I know nobody should steal but subjectively I would like to have more money right so like I make an exception for myself and so he's saying because there's other motivating factors things that subjectively or relating to each person as an individual that we have to take into account that's what causes us to not always act in accordance with our will or accordance with the good and so again these are called inclinations so the representation of an objective principle that necessitates a will is a command and the formula of a command is an imperative and so he talks about here is detective principle things that we can all universally reason to um and so the representation of that is that necessitates a will so saying the wilma do this are like it forces the will to act in this way that's called a command in the formula of a command or the way that we express a command is what we call the imperative and imperatives are always going to be signaled by the word odd right you ought to do this you ought not do that and so what we have here is our thing we're going to talk about it a little bit but like there's the hypothetical imperative which I think I mean we already talked about this before anyways but the hypothetical hypothetical imperative would be something like if you have some end in mind like let's say I want to be a better professor um that's the end goal that I have then if I ought if it won't be a better professor than I ought to work on my public speaking amount to work on writing better tests or do a better lecture prep or I ought to study how other professors have done so right so that is a hypothetical imperative and that's really going to be based on my own inclinations again box up or my own end desires so I want to be a better professor so it's fine hypothetical imperatives are good but again is a lot but it's not universalized right they you know that there's no aught commanding you to um study how to be a better professor because like you're not a professor um you know and maybe you don't want to come professor in just know that for you and so we can get rid of the hypothetical imperative if we get rid of ends and whether you're trying to follow but then there's a categorical imperative was universe Eliza balandin assess it eights upon every rational being as such so if you're a rational person you are forced to follow the categorical imperative it is like plus upon you instead of something like you ought to treat others the way you want to be treated something of that nature it's worth the categorical imperative cognizant of you know only do that which you can at the same time will to be done by everybody so a couple terms here when he talks about by good good is what I'm and will by objective reading so this is a the things the will is always inclined towards through our objective reasoning the things that we can understand as rational beings that are not dependent upon our subjective experiences its universe Eliza before everybody so that's what the quiz it's what determines the by objective reasoning and it's also the grounds valid for all rational beings and then there's also agreeable an agreeable here is that which influences the will by means of sensation or subjective causes so this is going to be things that are more subjective so the good is the reasoning agreeableness is like stuff that reasoning so again being a letter it's agreeable with me that I professor um but it is good for me to be a decent human being right so that's the way to understand both the good and agreeable so yeah I just talked about this but hypothetical imperatives that's commands as a means so these are things that you ought to do as a means to whatever info they might want but the categorical imperative or actions objectively necessary by itself as an end as an end in and of itself so it's due for its own sake asserting to become a better professor it's good to do for the sake of you know wanting to be a better professor but you know helping a person is need and need is something that's good in and of itself actions as good as it means so then he asked our actions good as a means or good in itself if it's good in itself that reason would require us to do it so if anything that is good in and of itself then we are required to follow that thing because it is an end and as rational beings that are ends in and of ourselves which I think it will talk about a little bit later we are required required to remote other ends so things that are good that are ends in and of themselves we were required to promote but things that are means to other ends were not necessarily required to promote going to 8:03 he talked to prudence so the way he determines or did says what prudence is is prudence is here we find it it's like right at the top skill on the choice of the means to one's own greatest well-being so it's your ability to under stand and decipher and determine what route you should do for your own sake so again like if I want to be a better professor then prudence would be my skillet ability my skill or my ability to choose to pursue things that will help me achieve that end of becoming a better professor so anything that is imperative from prudence must be hypothetical is what he's talking about because it's subjective reason right it's for my own well-being it's not for everybody um what he says here at the very top of 803 finally there is one imperative that without presupposing as its condition any other purpose to be attained that certain course of conduct commands is conduct immediately this imperative is categorical it concerns not the matter of the action or what it is to result from it but the form and the principle from which it does itself follow and the essential good in it consists in that disposition let the result be what it may this imperative medical diet of morality so is this imperative that requires us to do something completely it's doing actions that are good in himself but there's also just really important throw away a liner that I really want to focus on so morality is a categorical imperative but it says the concerns not the matter the action or what is a result from it but the form and the principle from which it does itself follow and the essential good in it consists in the disposition let us assault be with so today we think we ought to do these things are commanded us by morality or what he calls morality by reason these things are good in and of themselves these are actions that we should do regardless outcomes right boys saying whatever the result from it and let the result be what it may and so again is something that is non-consequentialist and it's important to distinguish it here he's saying look we're - for own sake things that are good for us to do things that were required to do by morality or even what we call morality these are these are good eating of themself whereas it doesn't matter what happens from them so say the person in need right that is something that is dictated or required from high morality saving the person in need is something that's moral to do regardless if that person to be a serial killer that you know it's going a bunch of other people right that it's not the consequence of the action it's the action in and of itself that matters and you can see here why he's arguing for that so consequentialism it's like yeah but what the best outcome that's natural so your actions are important insofar as they produce this outcome what context know these actions are ends another insulting that means to end and so because this action is good that's why you do that action regardless if bad or good outcomes come from it that we really required to follow that so hopefully that makes sense I know that I'm it's we're not getting any feedback and personally because I just start to like ramble on especially because I want to make sure that everybody makes it um so I'm tending to over explain things I also don't know if I'm clear enough so again if you all can give me feedback that's really helpful really important also while I'm at it I should also be sure to remind y'all to start working on your final papers that is in a module towards the end I think it's actually the very last module but it'll have all the information there if you have any questions about that I mean beyond so how are all these imperative possible is the next possible or the next time that he asked he says well you know obviously if you will an end you actually will the me to the end so that's how these imperatives are possible for a ethical imperatives that like the imperative like if I wanted from a good professor then I ought to you know sleep becoming a good professor or something um it's because I want these ends that obviously I am there's an imperative upon me to follow these means to this end but then he says well what a morality right the categorical imperative um it's a and he says here that since it is categorical or objective cannot rely on in presupposition so it must be aa priori and so meaning like no like it's because we are rational agents and we are on to reason as rational agents and because the categorical imperative is found through our reasoning and our understanding of ourselves that we must know a priori and also that's white imperative upon us because we have reason that you know it's not imperative upon us if we don't if we're not rational and that's why he says things like that we wouldn't call animals rational agents but because we have rationality we have reasoning it is required for us to follow that reasoning so going on to 804 he says here that the categorical imperative for us is a practical law whereas hypothetical imperatives excessive principle so practice law a law that must be obeyed a principle is something you know governs the whole universe whereas a principle is something that governs just a certain specific niche domain perhaps so necess it's like a printable is necessary for contain attaining a contingent purpose something that's dependent upon our desires our inclinations but can be disregarded by giving up a purpose the difference between law and principle and so hypothetical imperatives these two principles so like studying other professors is a principle in order to become a better professor but you know doing something that is good or doing things they wish everybody would do that's a law that's something that is governing everybody he also says that the categorical imperative is an opera or a synthetic practical proposition so it's different under Singh or what exactly that means a priori obviously is you know reasoning its prior to any experience but then etiquette proposition or synthetic practical proposition practical again meaning just moving us to action but it's important to talk about analytic proposition versus synthetic proposition this is something not found in the reading so I'm gonna bring it here to make you have a better sense of what it means so an analytic proposition is a proposition whose predicate concept is contained by its subject concept so predicate subject right a synthetic proposition is a proposition whose predicate concept is not contained in a subject concept but it is related um and so an analytic proposition is almost like a truism if that helps you understand and instead thetic proposition something that's like necessarily true but it doesn't immediately follow so the examples he gives our analytic propositions or something like all bachelors are unmarried right that unmarried is contained within the term Bachelor so that's why the predicate Discs contained in its subject all triangles have three sides right three sides is just a definition of being a triangle that's something it's a truism of sorts so in content us here is all bodies are extended that is they occupy space and that's just the definition to be as you occupy space so then talking about synthetic propositions these are things like all bachelors are alone right that that is something that necessarily follows but alone doesn't automatically come from the definition or the term of Bachelor all creatures with hearts have kidneys again like that's necessarily true there's no such thing as a creature with the heart that doesn't also have a kidney um but just by knowing what creatures with hearts are it doesn't immediately follow and then the example that Khan gives of an thetic proposition is all bodies are heavy that is they have some gravitational force so I mean to be extended or to be a body like obviously you're gonna have some sort of mass to you but it doesn't automatically follow from that that's something that you have to understand or imply mm-hmm so that's analytic and synthetic propositions so it is saying is the categorical imperative is an opera or a synthetic practical proposition so something that moves us to action it's practical interest by reason it's our priority and it's a synthetic proposition meaning that it's not something that we automatically understand by its definition so going down here about halfway through the page on 804 I think of hypothetical imperative as such I do not know in advance what it will contain until I'm given the condition but when I think of a categorical imperative I know at once what contains to knowing what it contains that's a synthetic part for since besides the law the imperative contains only the necessity of the maxim to conform with this law whereas the law contains no condition to which it was limited nothing is left with the universality of a law as such with which the maxim of the action ought to conform and is this conformity alone that the imperative actually represents as necessary so another to understand and this is found on the footnote on a 804 is what a maxim is so maxim is a subjective principle of acting and must be distinguished from the object of principle namely by practical law so the subject of principle of acting acting or the maxim it contains a practical rule determined by reason conformably with the conditions of the subject so the conditions are the subject the subjective of ignorance are also his inclinations and it is therefore the principle in accordance with which the subject acts but the law is objective principle valid for every rattle being and the principle in accord with which he ought to act this is an imperative so the maximum aid that what actually leads us to actions and it is partially on the object of principle or the imperative but also based upon our inclinations which is the object of principle or the imperative is how we ought the categorical imperative that is is how we ought to act but that doesn't always cause us to that it might be a one reasons that we take into account in our Maxim there's the forests single categorical imperative and is only this act according to that Maxim through which you can at the same time will then become a universal law so then it gives these four cases here and he's like well what do we do with these cases so the first one is like hey there's this guy and he's in a really dark spot life and he understands that the rest of his life is gonna have more bad than good and so because he's wondering is okay for him to commit suicide and so how can't respond on the top of 805 but then is but then one soon sees that a nature whose law it to destroy life itself but I need to the same sensation the function of which it is to impellers the advancement of life what contradicted himself and when it's not just as a nature hence that could not possibly take the place of the universal law of nature and consequently conflicts entirely with the supreme principle of all duty as look you are an end in and of yourself because you're a rational agent belonging to the realm of reason on and what he also laters will call like the kingdom of ends and so because you are an end and you are governed by you know morality to promote ends by ending yourself or killing yourself you're ending an end or you're destroying an end and so that self contradictory there to promote ends and then also at the same time demote or destroy or terminate ends that's contradictory in terms and so it saying you know suicide is never okay the second example he gives is of borrowing money music you know like you desperately need this money and you problems with it you'll pay back but you know that you're not gonna be able to and so it's saying is this okay because you really need the money right and he says here now I see then at once that it could never hold as a universal law of nature and harmonized with itself but must necessarily contradict itself but the universality of a law that everyone once he believes himself to be in need could compromise whatever he fancies with the intention not to keep it or it could promise whatever he thinks is with with him the intention not to keep it but make the promise in the end one may pursue with itself impossible as no one would believe he was being promised anything don't laugh with about any such utterance as a vain be tense so what he's saying here is look if you think it's okay for you to break your promise and willing that everyone break their promise in which case promises don't mean anything again it's a self-contradictory it defeats itself something talks about this third one it's like hey you have this useful talent and you realize that if you cultivate this talent a little bit that you would actually be a very useful human being in all sorts of respects Bolden to other end but you don't really want to this time you instead want to live this life of idleness of amusement procreation I don't work to enjoyment and it says here but he cannot possibly will this become a universal law of nature or si should be placed in us by natural instinct for as a rational being he necessarily wills that all capacities in him be developed because they serve him and given and for all sorts of possible purposes so it gating causes self defeating and then lastly it's this idea that everyone should fin for themselves mmm kind of the egoist approach like look take care of yourself I'll take care of myself Bowie says here on the top of 806 mmm it's for a will that result upon that this would conflict with itself as many cases can yet come to pass which one needs to love and compassion of others and which by such a law of nature spawn from his own will he would robbing yourself of all hope of the assistance he wishes for himself so again he talks about how all of these things are self contradictory and we talked about how some of these Maxim's you see will be would be self conscious and so the categorical imperative must be a maxim that is not self contradictory so then on the middle of 806 it says if we now intend to ourselves and duty finding that we actually do not will that our max should become a universal law since that it is impossible for us but that its opposite should rather generally remain a law we just take the liberty of making an exception to it for ourselves or just for this once to the advantage of our inclination consequently if we consider everything from one the same point of view namely that of reason we'd find a contradiction in our own will namely that a certain principle will be objectively necessary as a universal law and yet subjectively should not hold universally but allow for a sense so he's saying look every time that we follow our inclination we are breaking reasoning in the maximum in which we act is self contradictory and so essentially anytime that we deviate from the good in other terms every time we do wrong we are acting in a self contradictory manner because we think everybody should not do this but at the same time we should allow for exceptions in our next you to this case and so essentially any time to be wrong what doing is you are using faulty reasoning or poor judgment or reasoning or you're not reasoning even and what take it to an extreme you're going by other motivations rather than nationality Willa's thought as a capacity to the two minutes into action and conformity with the representation of certain laws and as such a capacity can only be found in rational beings so he's saying here's the will is something that we have that gives us the ability to determine our own action right through willpower we're saying we are determining what we're going to do that we want really hard to do this thing that we want to act in this way that's our will and so we have the power to do so and so the will is just this ability or it's this capacity for us to determine our own action but they must be in conformity with the representation of certain laws through so through our understanding of certain laws we will that we act that way that's what the will is and humans or in any rational agents for that matter and so because we are determining our actions based upon reasoning of certain laws it can only be found in rational beings all right top of 807 he says no it serves the will as the objective ground of its self-determination is the end and this if it is given by mere reason must hold equally for all rational beings turns out when you keep talking for a really long time you start to go a bit hoarse by contrast what contains merely the grounds of the possibility of an action the effect of which is an int is called the means the subjective ground of desiring is the incentive the object of ground of willing the motivating ground hence the difference between subjective ends which rests on incentives an object of one's which depend on motivating grounds and hold for every rational beam hmm so it's important to understand here what he means by end what he means by means what motivating grounds are and what incentives are later on on 8:07 he talked about how if there is something the existence of which in itself has an absolute worth that as an end in itself could be a ground of determinate laws then the ground of a possible categorical imperative would lie in it and it alone so we have to look at thing absolutely worth in and of themselves and this is what can ground blossom so rational beings he says exist as in and of themselves so he talks about how rational beings are we are objective it's right that we are ends in and of ourselves not subjective in which it would be like ends just for me right based upon my subject so maybe getting a good grade is something that is subjective end for you I don't have that same in I mean I want to be a decent teacher you know that kind of thing to like that's not my same end right or you know being able to make sure that everyone clearly understands this material that is something that is a subjective in for me but maybe that's not the end for you maybe you're fine just getting a good grade and never actually learning anything from this class so this would be a subjective end right and so what he's saying is instead it must be grounded morality must be grounded the categorical imperative must be grounded in objective ends and what he says is that's what rational agents are rational beings we as such are ends in and of ourselves and so that is the grounding of any possible morality in order the categorical imperative so that's the basis that's a root value that we hold ends and others ends in and of themselves are the things that cause the laws of morality at the very bottom of 807 to the top of 808 he has this excerpt here that says if then there's to be a supreme practical principle and with regard to the human will a categorical imperative and must be such that from the representation of what is necessarily an end for everyone because it is an end in itself it constitutes an objective principle of the will and ends conserved as a universal practical law the ground of the principle is a rational nature exist as an end in itself that is how a human being by necessity represents his own existence to that extent it is thus a subjective principle of human action but every other rational also represents its existence in this way as a consequence of just the same rational ground that also holds for me thus it is at the same time an object of principle from which as a supreme practical ground it must be possible to derive all laws of the will the practical imperative will thus be the following again practical meaning the way that you are to act the so the imperative the law that is force upon everybody because we're all engine of ourselves the practical imperative will thus be the following so act that you use humanity in your own person as well as in the person of any other always at the same time as an end never merely as a means so again we are always to treat people as in to them in and of themselves that we can use people again like you can use a plumber to come and fix your toilet or your sink or whatever but you are still understanding and using them as or treating them as a means or even though you're treating them as a means or using them as a means you're always still considering them and treating them as an end in and of themselves as well so that's a maximum upon which we are to act so then he talks about these responses of the previous four cases I gave you for the first one he says if to escape from a troublesome condition he destroys himself he makes use of a person merely as a means to preserving the bearable condition up to the end of life but a human being is not a thing it's not something that can be used merely as a means so he's saying look if you kill yourself you're just considering yourself as a means you're not considering yourself as an end in and of yourself and so that's why it is wrong and it's irrational even for the second one as far as necessary or duty to others is concerned someone who has an in mind to make a lying promise to others will see it once that he wants to make use of another human merely as a means who does not at the same time contained and contained in himself the end so look I'm just using you to get your money that's why I'm lying to you I don't really value you I don't value you enough as an int tell you the truth even so we think that's why that attempt is wrong thirdly with regard to contingent or meritorious duty to oneself is not enough that the action not conflict with humanity and art person as an indignant self and this also harmonized with it now there are in humanity predispositions to create a perfection which belonged to the end of nature with regard to humanity in our subject to neglect these would perhaps be consistent with the preservation of humanity as an indignant of itself but is not with the advancement of this end so it's saying look maybe this is enough to preserve humanity as an end but we're not advancing humanity and so that's why it's wrong there maybe it's not as egregious of a sin um but you're still falling short of what we ought to do of what our imperative is so we're not hurting humanity we're not promoting humanity we're not hurting the ends but we're not promoting or furthering the ends and then fourthly is a concern as concerns meritorious to do at others the natural end that all human beings have is their own happiness now humanity could indeed subsist if no one contributed anything to the happiness of others well not intentionally detracting anything from it but this is still only a negative and not a positive agreement with humanity as an indignant itself if everyone does not also try as far as you can to advance the ends of others for if that representation is to have its full effect on me the ends of an of a subject that is the end of in itself must as much as possible also being my ends so again II sing for that fourth way we're not going far enough so at the very bottom he talks about how the principle of humanity as an ending itself is not from experience because it's universal and so as it being universal there's no such experience it's sufficient to determine anything so basically what that means is because everybody isn't in and of itself I can never reason that through experience because I haven't met everybody right um because like it's like well I know a thousand people and they're all in but then I meet a new person is a thousand and first person and end okay I have to look and I have to experience it like that's not how it works and send it something that we know a priori before we even meet that other person it's before our experience until that way it's only through reasoning that we can understand that the principle of humanity is an end in and of itself because again no experience is sufficient to determine anything and because Humanity is an objective and which as such constitutes the overriding limit of all subjective ends and so because it's an object of ends object event and therefore it has a hierarchical position over any subjective end that is something we can only understand through pure reason okay going to 8:09 he then talks about how all Maxim's are rejected they're not consistent with the Wills own Universal legislation so the will is self legislating the author of Maxim's that is also subject to so the will is the one that creates these Maxim's it creates these imperatives but also it understands that it also has to follow these own laws that it creates of these only imperatives that it creates so our will is self legislating and that's really important for him to it's not that we are forced from you know some outside thing to follow the rules in that way we're not forced into being moral agents but it's through our own reasoning that we create these Maxim's and so it's actually self governing we're creating our own rules for how we are to act and we are then following them as such and is because that we are rational agents using reasoning and really reasoning alone to understand these things so again it's this idea that there's this autonomy right we are self-governing individuals we're not forced to follow morality there's not some you know divine command it's not some esoteric you know metaphysical laws out there that somehow have some sort of engagement with us but instead it's us creating for ourselves these laws are we're to follow and everyone does it the same universally because we are all rational agents and so that's why we even want to be good people um maybe if we're forced to be good because like you know we're just mere subjects then we might grow resentful or we might have a disposition towards wanting to do evil but because we're leading ourselves it's something that we freely followed because it's coming from us and so it's a really important part two concepts Kol framework that I'm really intrigued by again this is like one of those things I was talking about that has shaped me and my beliefs on whether or not I actually believe in non-consequentialist theory or not I'm not even really sure where I stand on that I do like this aspect of it a lot so then this excerpt about halfway through 8:09 yeah it's the third paragraph there now if we look back on all the efforts that have ever been undertaken to detect the principal morality to this duty it is no wonder why one and all all of them had to fail one saw the human being bound to laws by his duty but it did not occur to anyone that he is subject only to his own and yet universal legislation and that he is only obligated to act in conformity with his own will which is however universally legislating according to its natural end for if one thought of him just as subject to a law whichever it may be it had to carry with it some interest a stimulation or constraint because it did not as a law arise from his will which instead was necessitated by something else and conformity with the law to act in a certain way because of this entirely necessary inclusion however all the labor of finding a supreme ground of duty was irretrievably lost so he's saying this is the issue with why morality and moral theories before this has never worked from one never got duty but the necessity of an action from a certain interest it one's own interest or that of another but then the imperative always had to be conditional it could not be fit for a moral command at all I should therefore call this principle the principle of the autonomy of the will and opposition at the other which I can accordingly count as heteronomy so he's saying he is this autonomy the will that the will determines itself it legislates itself versus a heteronomy of the will which is the will is being forced by some other outside entity force being when at law what have you and so that you saying this is the main point of what gets his ground work going is like no our will is self-governing we have autonomy so the principle the autonomy of the will is something that I think is really important for you to know and then he talks about the kingdom of ends so what the kingdom of Bin's are it's the whole of all ends so as rational beings it's the whole length of rational beings is into themselves as well as the ends of that which each of them may set for itself so the kingdom of ends is all of us as rational agents that are indignant of ourselves but also it's all the ends that we set for ourselves so like me being a good professor that's a part of the kingdom of ends because it's based upon us as intimate of ourselves so that's what the kingdom of ends are it's another important thing to know so lastly I just want to read basically most of 8/10 um there's gonna be the final life service at the top of a 10-4 all rational beings stand under the law that each of them is to treat itself and all others never merely as a means but always at the same time as an end in itself but by this there arises a systemic union of rational beings through common objective laws ie a kingdom which because that these laws have their purpose is precisely the reference of these beings to one another as ends and means can be called a kingdom of end of course only an ideal so saying this is maybe never actualized but this is the way that reason governs us to behave and then skipping that next line we can now end where we set out from the beginning namely the concept of an unconditionally good will the will is absolutely good that cannot be evil hence whose maximum is if made a universal law can never conflict with itself and the reason it's always bill is because it is always rational it is always from reasoning and so our will is that that is always reasoning it's always understanding what is right through reasons or rationality so it's always good it can never be evil but it's instead corrupted it itself is not corrupted but the way in which we act is corrupted because of other things right because of our inclinations or our subjective incentives so this principle is therefore also it supreme law act always on that Maxim the University out the universality of which as a law you can will at the same time this is the only condition under which will can never be in conflict with itself and such an imperative is categorical since the validity of the will as a universal law for possible actions has an analogy with the universal connection or the existence of things according to universal laws which is what is formal and nature as such the categorical imperative can also be expressed as follows act according to Maxim's that can at the same time have as their object themselves as universal laws of nature such then is the formula of an absolutely good will a rational nature is distinguished from the others by this that it sets itself an end so yeah that is the groundwork for cons metaphysical morals and that is his argument for dant illogical ethics and also really the groundwork for ethics in and of itself again like I think it's really interesting I really am enticed by the parts of setting ourselves that's ends in and of ourselves the kingdom of ends um the idea that like no like our reasoning is always going to be towards what is right but the way in which we act is corrupted through things that are non rational through our own incentives our own inclinations right um I don't know entirely how far we go with that but I am very intrigued by it I think it is a very compelling thing and I also especially like the autonomy of the will that we govern ourselves because like I don't know how good doing the right thing is if you have a perverse incentive or it's just because you're forced to do it or because you think you'd be punished for not doing it or rewarded for doing it but instead it's because we want to do what is good for the sake of the good in and of itself um at least that's the way that I'm really trying to live my life so I am very very persuaded by this again this came to me at a time when I first started studying really philosophy but especially when I started studying ethics and he had a big impact on me and it's so interesting because like I'm like oh like I see where I got all this groundwork for myself um again that is my bias nature but I do find it interesting even though I don't necessarily buy all of it yeah so again if you have any questions about this please let me know and other than that I'll see you next class