One part of the moral duties is made up of duties we have towards other human beings - towards humans, not animals or spirits or other beings - according to Kant; they aren't duties to avoid making others suffer or to bring them happiness, but rather they are duties of revering and increasing people's freedom.

Quote: 0:08

The deduction of the specific duties from the moral law in Kant's thinking: 1:25

The division of the moral duties: 19:05

We have moral duties only towards humans: 20:02

Which duties we have towards others: 35:30

Duties towards others are not about their happiness but their freedom: 39:48

We have a duty to sustain ourselves through our own, useful work, instead of being parasites: 54:04

We have a duty to restrict the use of the world's goods, so that others can also make use of them: 1:10:25

Thanks: 1:56:07

Specific duties Kant writes about mainly in his Metaphysics of Morals: https://ld.circuitdebater.org/w/archive_files/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf/507955836/%5BImmanuel_Kant%5D_Kant_The_Metaphysics_of_Morals.pdf. I very much recommend also reading his often more extensive and more enlightening lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Every rational being carries within itself the ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity, the representation of a perfectly holy human being. This ideal we ought to strive for, against it do we ought to meassure ourselves. In infinity no one may ever reach this ideal, but this, according to Kant, mustn't be an argument for discarding the ideal itself and for not striving to conform to it.

Quote: 0:08

Moral rigorism: 0:25

The ideal of the God well-pleasing humanity: 2:34

The four ideals of ancient pratical philosophy: 12:13

The ideal of holiness humbles us: 29:48

The ideal of holines serves as a model of creation and of judgment: 48:07

The intelligible character of the human being is black or white, the empirical character can be grey: 1:14:31

The good will shows itself not as a good but as a constantly improving empirical character: 1:29:45

Our mode of thinking ought to and can conform with the ideal of holines, even if the mode of sense does not: 1:49:23

Thanks: 1:54:48

Kant speaks of the various ideals of practical philosophy in his handwritten estate on moral philosophy: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/. He also deals with them in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. (I am not aware of any English translations.)

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant is often attacked for his moral rigorism. His morality, you often hear, is too strict, it leaves too little freedom, no human being can be good enough for this moralty and it isn't fit for practice. Those accusations ar eoften dishonest however, the critics of Kant may pretend to not be able to follow his morality, the truth however is that they simply don't want to follow it. His morality seems to strict to them because it doesn't let them stay immoral.

Quote: 0:08

In morality there are only the positions of latitudinarism and rigorism: 0:50

Kant's moral rigorism is often criticized: 8:57

One should overcome the instinctive and timely aversion to rigorism and consider the arguments in support of it: 21:52

One should reflect critically what issue one really takes with rigorism: 31:15

The critics of Kant's morality simply don't want to be moral but only do whatever benefits them: 43:11

The aufkläred thinking of the philosopher abstracts vom the sensual and contingent and grasps the law behind it: 1:21:02

Every person has to either live according to the maxim that the right must be sacrificed for the world or that the world must be sacrificed for the right: 1:26:12

Rigorism makes righteousness humble and prevents self-rightesousness: 1:32:30

One ought not to declare the good to be impossible on the grounds of an experience which only exists because one has done evil: 1:44:42

Experience should not distort the metaphysics of morals, but it is important for moral anthropology: 2:18:22

Ideas ought to be practical and whoever drains them of their power through sophistry is responsible for the evil in the world: 2:22:53

Thanks: 2:31:45

On rigorism and latitudinarism Kant talks several times in his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up (I am not aware of any English translations). He also deals with the criticism of rigorism in On the common saying: That may be correct in theory, but it is of no use in practice: https://hesperusisbosphorus.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/theory-and-practice.pdf

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Evil for Kant is more than just a lack of goodness. It cannot be explained by the sensual drives in a person simply being stronger than reason, he who’d rather follow them than the moral law must already have decided to allow them more influence on his actions than the thought of duty. The propensity for this, which every person, even the virtuous and wise one, bears, Kant calls the radical evil in human nature.

Quote: 0:08

Evil: 1:14

Humans aren’t evil out of an evil will: 9:10

Humans aren’t evil because of being overpowered by their sensuality: 24:57

The radical evil in the human being: 41:40

Everyone has a propensity, even though not necessarily an appetite or inclination, for evil: 1:10:09

Man is neither good nor evil by nature, but not a moral being at all, but he has a propensity for evil and a predisposition for good: 1:33:00

The three types of radical evil: 1:44:27

Deceit as the root of evil: 1:54:19

Because of the propensity for evil man can only be good through virtue: 2:27:53

Thanks: 2:49:56

On radical evil Kant talks mainly in the first main part of his Religion within the Bounds of Reason Alone: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/kant/religion/religion-within-reason.htm. For fully understanding it however it’s strongly advised to also read his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and especially on the philosophy of religion: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/615.html (I am not aware of any free English translations online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Is morality based on rational insight as rationalism teaches or on a moral feeling as moral empiricists claim? Kant is a rationalist: According to him it is reason which gives itself a law and through which we recognize what our moral obligation is and what is morally forbidden. But in spite of that the moral feeling, that is the feeling of reverence, plays a central role in his moral philosophy: Because only through reverence which we feel for the law and our own free, autonomous nature as rational beings are we driven to actually do what we recognized as being moral.

Quote: 0:08

It's not enough for choice to pick actions that are in accordance with the law, it also must pick them for the right reason: 0:41

Choice makes its choice based on feelings that function as driving springs: 8:48

The moral sense theory: 23:21

The moral feeling is not the yardstick but the driving spring of morality: 27:55

There is a moral feeling, but no moral sense: 1:02:31

The sentiment as a kind of moral sense: 1:08:47

Kant's sympathetic synthesis of moral rationalism and empiricism: 1:21:55

Pathological and practical feeling: 1:26:37

Evil people don't know the practical feeling and think it's a pathological one: 1:48:44

The moral feeling is sensual in its quality but supersensual in its origin: 1:54:36

How the feeling of reverence comes about: 2:04:29

Example: 2:30:56

The role of the feeling of reverence in morality: 2:40:44

Kant's inconsistency: 2:47:53

Reverence for people is actually reverence for the moral law: 2:52:49

Thanks: 2:54:49

Most extensively Kant writes on the feeling of reverence and especially its origin in the main piece on the driving springs of practical reason in the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Kant shows that morality is about the good will. To be sure, will is more than intention and from a truly good will there will always come forth certain actions, but morality is not about calculating the assumed best consequences and depending one's actions on the expected results. This consequentialism rather is a main obstacle of morality.

Quote: 0:08

Kant's moral philosophy rejects all consequentialism: 0:21

Consequentialism thought to its logical conclusion is absurd and totalitarian: 7:51

In politics injustice is always justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that justice would bring catastrophe: 20:20

There are no small or petty offenses in morality: 34:02

Many evil actions are justified in a consequentialist manner by claiming that nothing would get better if they weren't done: 40:13

Many give up because of consequentialism and become pessimistic because there are no good results: 1:01:28

We can't possibly predict the consequences of our actions with certainty: 1:17:20

If good actions in the present will bring bad consequences in the future, that usually is only because in the past people already acted in a consequentialist manner: 1:38:33

There are no good consequences in the sensual world anyways, true morality therefore requires transcendental idealism: 1:52:20

Thanks: 2:02:40

Kant's whole moral philosophy is directed against consequentialism, without a specific text being dedicated to this one topic in particular. For an easy introduction one can read Kant's short essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy (I could not find a free translation online).

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

Actions as such cannot be good, they can have legality, i. e. be in accordance with the moral law, but actual morality lies in the attitude from which it stemss: in the good will.

Quote: 0:08

Legality of action and morality of will: 0:21

Spirit and letter: 29:34

Aufklärung liberates from being let by sensuality: 36:54

Good will is more than good intention: 49:12

Morally a person can be considered as if he actually had done and accomplished whatever he truly wants: 58:36

Character, not the mode of sense, makes a person good: 1:13:47

One ought not to prematurely consider oneself to be better than others or past people: 1:20:32

The degree of someone's Aufklärung shows in areas where what's right and good isn't generally accepted yet: 1:25:28

Often it is only coincidence who is on which side: 1:49:18

Many would be capable even of great evil under the right circumstances: 1:59:04

Original sin: 2:11:49

Most good in the world is more due to conincidence than to good will, but that doesn't mean that coincidence excuses evil: 2:29:55

We can judge the legality of actions, but not the morality of will: 2:40:37

Even one's own good will is uncertain: 2:55:37

Thanks: 3:10:31

The significance of good will and the difference between legality and morality can be studied especially in the Groundwork to the Metaphysics of Morals: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals as well as the Critique of Practical Reason: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

It’s not a person’s mode of sense – his personality insofar as he was born with it, his nature and his heart – which has value but rather his mode of thinking – his personality insofar as he himself created it, his character. It is the consistent following of maxims: He who has character is reliable and in unity with himself. And only such a person is a true human being, deserving of the name of a rational being, instead of being a slave to his whims.

Quote: 0:00

Mode of sense and mode of thinking: 2:41

Character: 18:32

Only a person of character is free: 37:56

Character bestows dignity and should be valued: 47:00

A person of character isn’t pedantic because of it: 1:12:58

Fake character: 1:22:02

Evil character: 1:36:51

The moral person acts out of duty which is not the same as blind obedience: 1:55:16

The best have character and do their duty, the judgments of others don’t have to be heard: 2:09:07

For moralisation you first should create a character as such: 2:19:54

How to form a character: 2:34:23

Kant’s midlife crisis and formation of his character: 2:46:23

Thanks: 3:03:13

About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0 (I am not aware of English translations to any of thse) as well as his Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View: https://dokumen.pub/anthropology-from-a-pragmatic-point-of-view-0521671655-9780521671651.html.

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

According to Kant we mean three different things when calling someone a good person, depending on the context and situation: We can call someone that because he has a good nature, a good heart or a good character. Only the last of those is truly morally good. Nature and heart together form the mode of sense of a person and this can make one more easy or hard to be around for others, but is neither morally good nor evil.

Quote: 0:08

Whether a person is good, can not be determined solely outwardly by his actions: 2:10

Good-naturedness: 6:49

Good-heartedness: 20:33

Kant's rejection of the soft-minded morality of compassion: 35:46

Compassion can easily lead to mere inactive lamenting: 47:02

Compassion can easily make one self-righteous: 52:00

Compassion can easily be outweighted by other feelings: 1:05:33

Compassion is fickle: 1:12:03

Compassion makes one easy to manipulate: 1:33:23

The mode of the sense and the mode of thinking: 1:45:40

Example of the worthlessness of leftist humanism and of the limits of empathy: 1:58:20

Thanks: 2:18:10

About the mode of sense, about human's mind and heart Kant talks at various places in his handwritten estate on morality: http://korpora.org/kant/aa19/ as well as his lectures on moral philosophy: https://www.archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes271imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes272imma | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0027kant_s1s1/mode/2up. Many further remarks can be found in his handwritten estate on anthropology: http://korpora.org/kant/aa15/ and his lectures on anthropology: https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_a3n3 | https://archive.org/details/kantsgesammeltes0000kant_j8c0.

Omer Bartov: As a former IDF soldier and historian of genocide, I was deeply disturbed by my recent visit to Israel: https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/13/israel-gaza-historian-omer-bartov

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai

The human being is a citizen of two worlds according to Kant: Not only a part of nature but also a member in a supersensual kingdom of purposes together with all other rational beings. And while in nature he is subjected to a law from outside of him, morality commands to regard oneself in the kingdom of purposes as if one were to give to it a law through one's own will.

Quote: 0:08

The categorical imperative: 0:44

Kingdom: 6:15

The kingdom of nature: 10:47

The kingdom of purposes: 13:44

The nihilistic rejection of the kingdom of purposes: 25:30

The third formula of the categorical imperative: 35:53

Only morality brings harmony into the purposes of rational beings: 44:56

The type of the moral law: 57:24

The role of purposiveness in Kant's system: 1:00:59

Morality sets truly free: 1:10:46

Man is a citizen of two worlds: 1:13:53

The kingdom of grace: 1:24:25

Kant tries to save humans from the cliffs of empiricism and enthusiasm: 1:35:37

Kant's reception of Swedenborg: 1:47:44

Thanks: 1:56:52

Whoever wants to support my aufkläring work can do so via:

https://ko-fi.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.patreon.com/jonathanivoloewer

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=VDDT7T7XHR77U

Thumbnail: www.hotpot.ai