字幕表 動画を再生する 英語字幕をプリント Funding for this program provided by additional funding provided by Now we turn, to the hardest philosopher that we're going to read in this course today we turn to Immanuel Kant who offers a different account of why we have a categorical duty to respect the dignity of persons and not to be use people as means merely even for good ends. Kant excelled at the university of Königsberg at the age of sixteen at the age of thirty one he got his first job as an unsalaried lecturer paid on commission based on the number of students who showed up at his lectures this is a sensible system that Harvard would do well to consider luckily for Kant he was a popular lecturer and also an industrious one and so he eked out a meager living it wasn't until he was fifty seven that he published his first major work but it was worth the wait the book was the critique of pure reason perhaps the most important work in all of modern philosophy and a few years later Kant wrote the groundwork for the metaphysics of morals which we read in this course I want to acknowledge even before we start that Kant is a difficult thinker but it's important to try to figure out what he's saying because what this book is about is well, it's about what the supreme principle of morality this number one, and it's also it gives us an account one of the most powerful accounts we have of what freedom really is so let me start today. Kant rejects utilitarianism he thinks that the individual person all human beings have a certain dignity that commands our respect the reason the individual is sacred or the bearer of rights according to Kant, doesn't stem from the idea that we own ourselves, but instead from the idea that we are all rational beings we're all rational beings which simply means that we are beings who are capable of reason. we're also autonomous beings which is to say that we are beings capable of acting and choosing freely now, this capacity for reason and freedom isn't the only capacity we have. we also have the capacity for pain and pleasure for suffering and satisfaction Kant admits the utilitarians were half a right of course we seek to avoid pain and we like pleasure Kant doesn't deny this what he does deny is Bentham's claim that pain in pleasure are our sovereign masters he thinks that's wrong. Kant thinks that it's are national capacity that makes us distinctive, that makes us special that sets us apart from and above mere animal existence. it makes us something more than just physical creatures with appetites. Now we often think of freedom as simply consisting in doing what we want or in the absence of obstacles to getting what we want that's one way of thinking about freedom. but this isn't Kant's idea of freedom Kant has a more stringent demanding notion of what it means to be free and though stringent and demanding, if you think it through it's actually pretty persuasive Kant’s reason is as follows when we, like animals seek after pleasure or the satisfaction of our desires of the avoidance pain when we do that we aren't really acting freely. why not? we're really acting as the slaves of those appetites and impulses I didn't choose this particular hunger or that particular appetite, and so when I act to satisfy it I'm just acting according to natural necessity and for Kant, freedom is the opposite of necessity there was an advertising slogan for the soft drink Sprite a few years ago the slogan was obey your thirst there there's a Kantian insight buried in that Sprite advertising slogan that in a way is Kant's point when you go for Sprite, or Pepsi you're really you might think that you're choosing freely sprite versus Pepsi but you're actually obeying something, a thirst, or maybe a desire manufactured or massaged by advertising you're obeying a prompting that you yourself haven't chosen or created and here it's worth noticing Kant’s specially demanding idea of freedom what way of acting, how can my will be determined if not by the prompting sub nature or my hunger or my appetite, or my desires? Kant's answer: to act freely is to act autonomously and to act autonomously is to act according to a law that I give myself not according to the physical laws of nature or to the laws of cause and effect which include my desire, to eat or to drink or to choose this food in a restaurant over that now what is the opposite what is the opposite of autonomy for Kant he invest a special term to describe the opposite of autonomy heteronomy is the opposite of autonomy when I act heteronomously I'm acting according to an inclination or a desire that I haven't chosen for myself so freedom is autonomy is this specially stringent idea that Kant insists on. now why is autonomy the opposite of the acting heteronomously or according to the dictates of nature Kant’s point is that nature is governed by laws laws of cause and effect for example suppose you drop a billiard ball it falls to the ground we wouldn't say the billiard ball is acting freely why not? it's acting according to the law of nature according to the laws of cause and effect the law of gravity and just as he has an unusually demanding and stringent conception of freedom, freedom as autonomy, he also has a demanding conception of morality to act freely is not to choose the best means to a given end it's to choose the end itself for its own sake and that's something that human beings can do and that billiard balls can’t insofar as we act on inclination or pursue pleasure we fact as means to the realization of ends given outside us we are instruments rather than authors of the purposes we pursue that's the heteronomous determination of the will on the other hand insofar as we act autonomously according to law we give ourselves we do something for its own sake as an end in itself when we act autonomously we cease to be instruments to purposes given outside us we become what we can come to think of ourselves as ends in ourselves. this capacity to act freely Kant tells us is what gives human life its special dignity. respecting human dignity means regarding persons not just as means but also as ends in them and this is why it's wrong to use people for the sake of other people's well being or happiness this is the real reason Kant says that utilitarianism goes wrong this is the reason it's important to respect the dignity of persons and to uphold their rights. so even if there are cases remember John Stuart Mill said well in the long run if we uphold Justice and respect the dignity of persons we will maximize human happiness. What would Kant's answer be to that? what would his answer be? even if that were true even if the calculus worked out that way even if you shouldn't throw the Christians to the lions because in the long run fear will spread, the overall utility will decline, the utilitarian would be upholding Justice and rights and respect for persons for the wrong reason for a purely contingent reason for an instrumental reason it would still be using people even where the calculus works out for the best in the long run, it would still using people as means rather than respecting them as ends in themselves. so that's Kant's idea of freedom as autonomy and you can begin to see how it's connected to his idea of morality but we still have to answer one more question what gives an act it's moral worth in the first place if it can't be directed at utility or satisfying wants or desires, what do you think gives an action it's moral worth? this leads us from Kant’s demanding idea of freedom to his demanding idea of morality. What does Kant say?