Kant's Axe
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 11. 2014
- Is it ever morally acceptable to tell a lie? Kant thought not. His example of the would-be murderer explains his reasoning.
Read by Harry Shearer. Scripted by Nigel Warburton.
From the BBC Radio 4 series - A History of Ideas. www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04bwydw
This project was possible in partnership with The Open University www.open.edu/openlearn/history...
and the animations were created by Cognitive. - Hudba
God the artwork is amazing in these.
agreed
Why is the only women in this video look like a sick naked person ? it's bizarre
bro is here?
Wait this doesn't make any sense to me. I think it's the other way around. If I tell the truth and the axe man kills my friend, then it *is* my responsability. I could've given my friend a chance, and I didn't. Now if I lie, and the axe man accidentaly finds my friend and kills them, then it's *not*, because I did all I could to avoid it.
+TheBlessedarrow As he said in the video, telling the truth is a categorical imperative which means telling the truth is always morally right or put a differently lying is always wrong not matter the consequences. I know it's different from what you would do but that's what a Kantian would do. Kantian ethics doesn't consider the consequences but rather the intentions behind the action. Your approach seems to be more utilitarian and you have to consider actual vs expected or foreseen consequences.
+TheBlessedarrow You don't know if the axe man wants to kill your friend
Both choise ends up with the man is killing your friend. If you tell the truth, that is also "giving him a chance". Because what if he can run away when he sees him ? etc.
lucky armadilo All of your arguments are consequential. You could tell the axe man the truth and then he could kill you for ratting out your friend. Your friend could be testing you. You don't know what the hell the consequences are, and you don't care about your self preservation. All you care about from a deontological perspective is not using people as a means to a personal end.
In a way, followers of deontological ethics are like the ancient Greek heroes that killed themselves in the name of their honor, or as a modern example the Starks from Game of Thrones.
TheBlessedarrow I agree
If have learned one thing...
It's that I don't wanna be kants best friend
hahahah
Fr
Was this narrated by Seymour Skinner?
+Trevor Wong Yup! he's the voice actor
That Shining reference tho :D
The ignored option is I have no duty to tell you anything at all.
In the original example, the killer was already headed the right way, so if you were to remain silent, the worst outcome would be the most likely one.
@@maxwelltoshach8208 how can we be guilty of the killer heading a certain way? Isn’t the problem deeper than that? Isn’t the environment the killer grew up with, the cause, and the death a valid consequense?
@@tme98 Doesn't change how you chose to act, or how that impacted the result.
@@maxwelltoshach8208 This also brings up another kind of ethics: whether inaction should be punished. Inaction in not revealing any information to the murderer can be justified, but inaction in letting the murderer go is more messy
I'd have a guilty conscience knowing I didn't do everything possible to keep my friend from being killed.
Moral norms are not an end in themselves but merely a means to an end. They are put in place for a reason/purpose. They are designed to be beneficial. And if they cease to be so, they counteract or defeat this very purpose. If, contrary to the rule, telling the truth in a particular instance would lead to significant harm, it is a moral duty to lie. It is morally wrong to injure a person, but it is morally justified in case of self-defence or defence of another person.
Kant's maxim would be something like: fiat veritas, et pereat mundus.
Ralph W. Emerson wrote: "Good men must not obey the laws too well."
No it isn't a moral duty to lie. If the axe man wants to kill your friend, you can say no I won't tell you where he is because you would kill him. That's the truth and it does not hurt your friend nor does it hurt you unless you believe giving into fear and threats is more important than living in which case you have already chosen to harm yourself.
Except that there's no such thing "good men". A Fisher man is still not good even if he didn't murdered anyone because he killed a fish
@@user-is3yn7xr4cA fisherman is merely using the fish as means to an end, which is fine as the fish isn't a moral agent. However, some neokantians do believe that we should treat fish or animals as ends in themselves as we do not know if they actually have the ability to reflect on the end they set and pursue. Only thing is Kant would say that treating animals as means is fine as long as you dont treat other people as means to an end without their permission.
i love this channel !!
I think I'll go with my gut instinct on this one.
What this video demonstrates is that mere statement of facts and the spirit of truthfulness are not the same things. Love and Wisdom are essentially one and the same.
Amazingly efficient video!
Excellent video.
I have always thought that Kant would have no problem with the individual NOT telling the sinister man holding an axe anything at all, and just calling the police instead. That way, the individual does not become an accessory to (or, does not in some way abet) an immoral act, and Kant's view of morality/categorical imperative is not infringed upon.
What do you all think?
Agree.
I kan't understand why you would do that
Simply: ask why does he looks for him
Everybody gangsta ‘till you realise the house has a nose and eyes.
just don't say anything, or tell the man you aren't going to tell him where your friend is. you don't have to lie, and you don't have to give the potentially dangerous man any information about your friend
thanks, fast, easy and straight to the point for my exam. ;)
I wouldn't open the door in the first place.
The sinister looking man just wanted to return the axe he borrowed to his friend.
I dont open the door to people i dont know.
funny
Easy! Just call the police about a suspicious man in front of your house holding an axe asking where your best friend is.
Nice Shining reference on the typewriter
How would I know that the man with the axe is going to kill my friend? If he made it clear to me that my friend was going to be killed, I say that divulging information would be aiding the murderer and would make me an accomplice.
In the original scenario, it's obvious he is there to kill your friend. Typically thought experiments are easier to understand if we don't add externalities to them.
Maybe youre friend told you or he tells u
Act so as to will that your actions become universal law
The would be killer point gives way to the application of utilitarianism to this dilemma. Thanks for the upload.
Of course my best friend might have just ordered an Axe from AMAZON...
All those "The Shining" references tho
ok
@@unbreather3294 ok
I wouldn't answer. There's no obligation for me to speak to anyone.
if the friend is batman?
Give the axeman a beer.
A surprising mistake in this video is when the artwork shows Jeremy Bentham at 1:05 saying, "You should do whatever brings you the greatest happiness." This is doubly inaccurate. First, Bentham is about promoting pleasure, not happiness. That may not seem like a big deal to most people, but among utilitarians, it has been a major bone of contention whether happiness or pleasure is the point of life. Secondly, Bentham said to promote the pleasure of all sentient beings, including animals. He was not advocating selfishness or hedonism. Interestingly enough, the audio narration of what Bentham said is slightly different and somewhat more accurate.
Right, that would be J.S. Mill's territory, the Greatest Happiness principle.
Can I just tell him that I don't want to tell him?
00:12 Is it morally acceptable to lie when a sinister man asks for the location of your best friend?
00:25 Kant's categorical imperative is about telling the truth
00:35 Kant argued that lying, even with unintended consequences, is morally wrong
00:43 Be honest about your friend's whereabouts
00:52 Your responsibility is determined by your actions and honesty.
01:02 Morality vs. Utilitarianism
01:11 Happiness and consequences for truth-telling and lying
01:20 Deontological approach to ethics
OTOH (there is always an otoh) I might break a law because it is a silly law. Like walking against the lights when there is no car nearby.
Then a blind man follows me and is killed by a car that appeared around the corner.
Good point but that's not exactly how a categorical imperative works. A CI consists of two parts a) if this is the situation b) I do that. It becomes categorical, meaning a moral wrong to violate, if is impossible to want everybody to follow that imperative. If you don't want everybody to follow that it means you're making an exception for yourself, which is the reason it's bad. So if you say "I can cross the road when there's no car around" ask yourself if it is possible for you to want it being a universal law.
It would be great if this video had closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
It does now
What about telling the guy with the axe "I don't know."?
+Mikesaniceguy that would still be a lie wouldn't it?
+Mikesaniceguy the the conflict will be with you.
Actually that would be acceptable. Because you are not lying, maybe your friend is in the washroom or in the bedroom, you don't know where he is. So it's not a lie but a misleading truth, still a truth. I'm too early to this lol.
I have always believed that the truth is the truth, but I will not say anything to get someone killed on purpose. Sometimes it just better not to do or say anything at all.
I wonder why Kant's example is a friend and not a close relative. The reason why there are rules about lying in most moral codes is not because lying is in itself wrong. Lying in order to seek to gain advantage over others or to avoid the consequences of some other bad action by you is what makes it wrong. I don't have much time for Kant.
But if he tells the truth then Superintendent Chalmers might realize that they are not actually steamed hams!?
What about the option of just saying to the axeman , "I'm not telling you"... ???
My answer would be “I don’t know”
KANTSEQUENCES
Just don't talk to him. You're not required to answer at all either with truth or deceit.
The problem for me in this is lie or tell the truth the ax man and the friend are allowed to continue into the future while after answering you are subjected to standing in the doorway with no further action. In the scenario there is no validity in any opinion as there are no valid responses or actions from the one answering the question. Truth is a construct usually anyway. A perception. Takes 30 seconds to answer the door. Who knows if he's still in the house? You havent seen him in thirty seconds. Wouldn't that in fact be the truth?
in fact, Kant's argument makes no sense. If you ignore a plan for a murder, and you could have called the police, then you participated in the murder. By telling the ax man where your friend is, you are now at the same moral level as the ax man.
What if the Axe man is your best friend?
hmm it eskaleets kwikli
Just be silent.
*pulls out uno reverse card*
You tell the truth and then keep your eye on would be murderer after screaming would be murderer is here in the house. The lying or the honesty has to be judged with your actions after your decision. Its an incomplete scenario as everyone considers the consequence of what happens next. Except maybe the truly different thinker. Its not realistic to think you'd answer the ax murderer and just stand there in the doorway indefinite. Its an incomplete thought.
How about telling the truth because it is the right thing, telling lies isn't.
You did what you were asked
You ask him to give you the axe and then you tell him the truth, while bringing him to your friend yourself. With his axe in your hand though. If he does not want to give you the axe, you do not give him the information. This is neither a lie nor the truth. It is avoiding complications.
clever
In reality he ask for where he can chop wood, and then you tell him where he can chop wood. now he will chop or murder those tree's and the death of those tree's will be on your mind
hello
Skiiiiiiiiiineeeer: what do you say about Kant?
If we agree with Kant that if we lied and the axe murderer found our friend and killed if then if it is our fault wouldn't that make his theory a consequentialist one? The opposite to what he is putting forward as an ethical theory.
The consequences don't have a moral standing in relation to us (as long as they don't violate the formulations of the categorical imperative), is my understanding of Kant.
Uuuh you call the police..
So would a utilitarian say you should lie in this case?
Yes
what about half-truths , you can not tell the truth but yet not lie.
WTH am I watching psychology videos at 3 am when I have homework due tommorrow?
Reading your comment I looked up at the time: 3: 02 AM
What about not answering if someone asks for my password Im not gonna lie or tell the truth I'm simply going to say I'm not going to answer
Can anyone understand what word he is saying when it should or should not be on your conscious or consequence? idk what word he is saying here, could someone tell me. For an example at 0:58
Pretty sure he's saying 'conscience' at 0:58
+Grace Lloyd Ok thank you.
Kant must have had OCD.
SAY THIS IN MONTGOMERY BURNS VOICE
"Do I look fat in this?"
*Kant lied*
Did that make him a nonconsequentialist?
+f1sk8mm Yes, a deontologist.
Mmmm Steamed Hams!
But if you thought that your friend would try to run away while you're talking to the axe murderer, shouldnt you tell them "Hes in my house right now, but i think he will try to run away while were talking"
You arent really being honest if you say "hes in my house" with the intention of giving your friend a chance to escape.
This is misleading. It is irrational to lie as you are telling something as truth that is not. There are two ways out of this which maintain the duty not to lie:
1. Tell a misleading truth: e.g. I don't know exactly where he is, he lives in Chelsea etc.
2. Refuse to answer. You are not lying if you choose to say nothing. Kant was all about actions. If you do not take an action you are not doing anything morally wrong.
There's also the problem of being able to universalize any maxim. So, sure "one should not lie." But on the other hand, you could have the maxim "when an axe murderer shows up at my front door on Friday, October 30 at 7:40 PM and asks about my friend's whereabouts, I should tell the axe murderer that my friend is in the next town over."
The categorical imperative implodes under the weight of universality.
I'm sure that would be true if the circumstances were at all relevant to the universalization principle, but sadly, they are not. The only thing that is relevant is the act itself. So while you may be wondering whether it is okay to lie to the axe murderer who shows up at your front door on Friday, October 30 at 7:40 PM and asks about your friend's whereabouts, the only maxim you would have to test under the CI to determine what you should do is "one should (not) lie". Everything else is irrelevant, unnecessary fluff.
Where's that in the Second Critique? As I understand it, this is a common criticism of Kant. Just look at what Rawls does with the Kantian interpretation in "The Theory of Justice." But of course, we are not the first people to disagree on what exactly is meant by "universalizability" in Kant.
Not to mention the whole section in the Prolegomena on Ambiguous Rights, which kind of incredibly problematizes Kant's moral theory.
If i tell the truth and he forces his way into my house kills my friend anyway, am I somehow less responsible for the outcome? If the solution to a philosophical question requires 20/20 hindsight or a straw-man argument to be proven correct it's not an answer, its merely a flawed argument.
For someone with such an uncompromising ideology, it sure seems to me like you would want your beliefs to hold up independent of a hypothetical situation of your choosing.
These logic puzzles make no sense in the first place. If a random stranger with or without a axe asked where my friend was then I would ask him why and who he is.
"I don't know" is the correct answer to the question from the guy with the axe.
"I don't know" is still a lie
the correct answer is "oh yes, he will be here in an hour, and so will the police". No lies, and a little caution for mr axe murderer... cuz I'm sooo kind and compassionate.
Kant 1 BBC radio 0
close the door or Say he fled to like the pacififc ocean or something doubt theyd ever do that by chance anyhow and its a big sea so unlikely to find him
i didint understand anything
Fascinating! I guess I’m not a Kantian here.
“Are there any Jews in there?”
No sir, no there are not.
This is the comment that really helped me solidify why I disagree with this school of though so intensely.
If a sinister looking axeman knocked on my door... I would tell a white lie myself. Immanuel... I Kan't understand why he'd say it would be wrong
I will sleep with the axeman if he is hot.
Pretty stupid logic if you ask me.
I love philosophy and ethics
Scenario # 2
Kant bitch slaps axe-guy &
drags him by the nostrils back to mommy. Kant's friend , meanwhile films scene & uploads to YT.
or if Allah, the all knowing, all just, most merciful, the only one necesssary being is the objective truth, then our limited subjective personal opinions mean nothing.
Kant's reasoning really has quite the double standard.
So, if you lie, you are responsible for all the consequences, but if you don't lie, you are not responsible - regardless of anything what happened? That just sounds like some kind of apologist bullshit mentality just to appease your conscience. No, Mr. Kant, speaking the truth - while of course a great thing to do in almost every case - does not automatically dismiss you of any responsibility.
In the case with the axe man you cannot know for absolutely sure the outcome in both scenarios. So, if you say the truth and your friend gets murdered, you did do an action - and whereas you are not responsible for the outcome, you are nevertheless totally responsible for the action itself.
This really sounds just as an apology for less emotionally intelligent and less resilient people to have an easy by-the-book answer instead of not only properly judging every situation in life by the actual surrounding circumstances, but also taking the full responsibility of your decisions.
lol wtf, just say you don't want to tell him where your friend is and call the police
strawman; you have no obligation of truth to those that would wish you or those you love harm. this in itself can be applied universally; and when applied to a large social context, works universally for the good. kant is not suggesting one be a witless robot and never lie under any circumstance, he is of course guilty of it himself. he is only human. one would be right to inquire what he intends to do with said axe; and why he wants to see his friend. if your intuition were not satiated with the lies of a madman, he would be met with silence, which is just as good as a misdirection. but again; to deceive those that would hurt us (which is within our best and most honest ability to detect) does not go against the imperative because it has no failings on a the wide social level e.g if everyone steals no one has anything.
Remember a lot of these philosiphers came from a long time ago and were greatly flawed. Some more than others. Kant is saying we shouldn't give up on our principles because they determine right and wrong. Making excuses means the rules might as well not even exist. At least thats how I saw it.
fuck off!!!! kant followers should burn in hell.
I really can't rationalize his viewpoint.
I agree with both to an extent, I believe you should always tell the truth, even if it hurts someone’s feelings or makes you look bad, but if it is life or death or for the greater good, lying is okay
This has to be the most backwards thinking ,so let me sit around all day and think of dumb shit to write about and call myself a philosopher😂
Hello Redditors.
Fun but dumb Kant example.
Now wonder Ayn Rand thought Kant to be immoral. I think this is nonsense! Lie or not, it's moral to do what you can to protect your friend, not being concerned about your conscience.
This is why Bernie Supporters should vote for Hillary.
600th like
first
gay
TIL Kant was just another ideological puritan.
This is why Americans are so conservative when it comes to 2nd amendment.
Most of these western philosophers sound like a joke.
Yah, but that's not really fair. You're only seeing bits of a philosopher's position without seeing the underlying arguments supporting it. Also, these videos aren't all that great. They tend to pick out the most extreme part's of philosophers' positions and then they explain them poorly without providing any of the underlying justifications. To be clear, I don't really like Kant, but there is a lot more to Kant's thought than this video suggests.
Oh ok. Yes, it is indeed a bit unfair for me to comment on their works based on these youtube snippets. But, whatever, I've heard so far, it all seems like cold exercises in logic without any sense of wonder. Maybe that's also got to do with me not being raised in the west.
Some of that has to do with the writing style. A lot of modern philosophy is very academic, technical and specialized. The popular writing can be a little bit easier to read. Even so, logic is merely a tool, and a very powerful one at that. It cannot really motivate anything. The questions philosophers ask can be very abstract and the writing technical, but they still arise out of deeply puzzling aspects of human experience, being motivated by an intrinsic human desire to "know."
Yes, in fact I think the writing is unnecessarily opaque. I had to read some essays by philosophers and culture theorists in college- the ideas were nice, but they could have easily written in five paragraphs what they were rambling on about in 20 pages :D
Kant's just proof that every philosopher (besides Diogenes) was full of shit.