Complete tangent: I low-key love how English speakers as a whole just mispronounce Kant, even though they absolutely can pronounce it properly (and Aussies do it the best, probably). Anyway, good video Danny.
Danny, I'd be interested in hearing your personal views on philosophy more than lecture videos about philosophy 101 (since I already have a BA in Philosophy lol). Dunno if you want to do a video on that or not.
@@BreadofLifeChannel yeah it's always been a thorn in Kant's philosophy. He says that animals are not agents given what it means to be a "rational being" (being sensitive to moral law). He might think that animals suffer or even say that you can be cruel to them. What a lot of people don't like about the Kantian view of animals is that Kant states that only AGENTS have morally relevance - so we don't have any obligations to animals in this way.
@@DannyPhilTalk Thanks for the further explanation! It seems to me that if an agent is a being that can make decisions, animals should be considered agents, even if their decisions do not rise to the level of moral decision making. However, it seems to me that sometimes animal decision making is moral. There are times when my dog knew that he had done something wrong and hid under the bed or put his tail between his legs even before I rebuked his action.
This is a good question, and I'm not a Kant scholar - but one thing is for sure - Kant would say that are actions are caused or explained *by the agent themselves*; they are not random. The force of the randomness objection is looking for some kind of contrastive explanation for why one action was taken *over another*. I'm not sure how Kant would respond to that objection.
Liking the lecture format. Very interesting since I haven't had a formal education in philosophy. Great job!
I took Phil 101, got a 1.9! 😜
Great video! Nice and informative as well as concise
I kant understand Kant. Feel free to make that a t-shirt!
That would be a great t-shirt!
@@BreadofLifeChannel stop being nice or I might have to start liking you! 😂
@@JerryPenna I hope so!
Hi Danny, I like your intro, God bless 💜😄
Nice hair :D
Complete tangent: I low-key love how English speakers as a whole just mispronounce Kant, even though they absolutely can pronounce it properly (and Aussies do it the best, probably).
Anyway, good video Danny.
Great video! Just wondering what school did you go to?
Danny, I'd be interested in hearing your personal views on philosophy more than lecture videos about philosophy 101 (since I already have a BA in Philosophy lol).
Dunno if you want to do a video on that or not.
Okay, I’ll keep that in mind. You could listen to some of my debates if you’re interested in some of my positions. Thanks!
Great video! Does Kant count animals as agents? Clearly rocks don't make decisions, but it seems that animals do.
He doesn't. :/ - they are not autonomous on his view. Moral law does not apply to them.
@@DannyPhilTalk Thanks!
@@BreadofLifeChannel yeah it's always been a thorn in Kant's philosophy. He says that animals are not agents given what it means to be a "rational being" (being sensitive to moral law). He might think that animals suffer or even say that you can be cruel to them. What a lot of people don't like about the Kantian view of animals is that Kant states that only AGENTS have morally relevance - so we don't have any obligations to animals in this way.
@@DannyPhilTalk Thanks for the further explanation! It seems to me that if an agent is a being that can make decisions, animals should be considered agents, even if their decisions do not rise to the level of moral decision making. However, it seems to me that sometimes animal decision making is moral. There are times when my dog knew that he had done something wrong and hid under the bed or put his tail between his legs even before I rebuked his action.
@@BreadofLifeChannel Yeah I think most people are sympathetic to what you're saying. Not an easy puzzle at all - even for non-Kantians.
How does Kant would distinguish freedom from randomness ?
This is a good question, and I'm not a Kant scholar - but one thing is for sure - Kant would say that are actions are caused or explained *by the agent themselves*; they are not random. The force of the randomness objection is looking for some kind of contrastive explanation for why one action was taken *over another*. I'm not sure how Kant would respond to that objection.