WGBH Station; WGBH Forum Network; Mind Your Motive / The Supreme Principle of Morality

Finally produced forty five additional funding because logically. Now we turn to the hardest. To lots of her we're going to read in this court. Today we turn to emmanuel khan who offers a different account of why we have a categorical duty. To respect the dignity of persons. And not to use. People as means. Merely even for good ends. Kind excelled at the university of can experience. At the age of sixteen. At the age of thirty one he got his first

job as an unsolicited lecture. 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 conde he was a popular lecture 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. That 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. Of course. I want to acknowledge even before we start. That qantas a difficult thinker. But it's important to try to figure

out what he's saying. Because what is it what this book is about is. Well. It's about what the supreme principle of morality is 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. I can't reject utilitarianism. He thinks that the individual person and all human beings. Have a certain dignity. That commands our respect. The reason the individual. Is sacred or the bearer of rights according to can't 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 are 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. Can't. At mit. The utilitarians were half 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 and pleasure. Are our sovereign masters. The things that are on. Can things that. It's our rational capacity. That makes us distinctive that makes us special that sets us apart from an above. Mere animal. Existence. It makes us something more than just physical. Creatures with. Appetite. 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 idea of freedom. Kant has a more stringent. Demanding notion of what it means to be free and know it stringent and demanding if you think it's through. It's actually pretty persuasive. Can't reasons as follows. When we like animals. Seek after pleasure. Or the satisfaction of our desires or the avoidance of pain. When we do feel that we aren't really acting freely. Why not. We're really acting as the slaves. Of those appetite. And impulse. I didn't choose this particular hunger. Or that particular appetite. And so when i act as satisfy yet. I'm just acting according to natural.

Necessity and for can't. 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 canteen insight. Buried in that spray hammer's dazzling slogan. That in a way is khan's point. When you go for a sprite. Or a 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 promptings of nature. Or my hunger or my appetite. Or my desires. Contents or to act freely. Is to act. Autonomous tly. And to act autonomously. Is to act according to a law that i give myself. Not according to the physical laws of nature. Because 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 a current he invents a special.

Term to describe the opposite about time to me. Hedren a me is the opposite a bad time to me when i act. Head around i'm asli. I'm acting according to an inclination or a desire. That i haven't chosen for myself. So freedom as how tanami is the specially. Stringent. Idea. That can't insists on. Now why is tanami. The opposite of acting head or honestly or according to the dictates of nature. Can find 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 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 it's. Alf. For its own sake. And that's something that human beings can do. And that billiard balls. Can't. In so far as we act on. Inclination or pursue pleasure. We act as means. To the realisation of ns. Given outside us.

We are instruments. Rather than authors of the purposes. We pursue. That's the head or animists determination of the will on the other hand. In so far as we act autonomously. According to a lot 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. We can come to think of ourselves as ends in ourselves. This capacity to act freely. Kant tells us. Is what gives human life had special. Dignity. Respecting human dignity. Means regarding persons not just as means. But also its ends in themselves. 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 can't 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. You have a chance to a male said well in the long run. If we uphold justice. And respect the dignity of persons. We will maximize human happiness. What would council answer be. Have 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 questions to the lines. Because in the long run. Fear will spread. The overall utility will decline. The utilitarian. Would be upholding justice. And right. 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 be using people as means rather than. Respecting them. As ends in themselves. So that's kind of his idea of freedom and 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 for satisfying wants and desires. What gives an action. Its moral worth. This leads us from conscious. Demanding idea of freedom. To his demanding idea of morality. What is can't say. What makes an action.

Morally worthy. Consists not in the consequences or in the results. That flow from it when makes an action morally worthy has to do with the motives. With the quality of the will. With the intention. For which the act is done. What matters is the motive. And the motive. Must be. Of a certain kind. So the moral worth of an action depends on the motive for which it is done. And the important thing is that the person. Do the right thing for the right reason a good will isn't good. Because of where the defector accomplishes cut right. It's good in itself. Even if by its utmost effort the goodwill accomplishes nothing. It would still shine like a jewel for its own sake. As something which has its full

value in itself. And so for any action. To be morally good. It's not enough that it should conform to the moral law. It must also be done for the sake of the moral law. The idea is that the motive confers the moral worth on an action. In the only kind of motive. That can confer moral worth on an action. Is the motive of duty. Well what's the opposite. Of doing something out of a sense of duty because it's right. Well for can't. The opposite. Would be all of those motives having to do with our inclinations. Inclinations. Referred to all of our desires all of our contingently given. Want preferences. Impulses. And the like only actions done. For the sake of the moral law. For the sake

of duty. Only these actions have moral worth and i want to see what you think about this idea. But first let's consider a few examples. Kant begins with an example of a shopkeeper. Us to bring out the intuition and make plausible the idea. That would confer his moral worth and inaction. Is that it be done. Because it's right. He says suppose there is a shopkeeper. And in an experience customer comes in the shopkeeper knows that he could give the customer. The wrong change could short change the customer. And get away with it. That at least that customer wouldn't know. But the shopkeeper. Nonetheless. Says well if i short change this customer. Word may get out. My reputation would be damaged. And i would lose business. So i won't shortchange

discussion. The shopkeeper. Does nothing wrong he gives the correct change. But does his action. Have moral worth. Contest no it doesn't have moral worth. Because the shopkeeper only did the right thing for the wrong reason. Out of self-interest. That's a pretty straightforward case. Then he takes another case. The case of suicide. He says we have a duty to preserve ourselves. Now. For most people who love life. We have multiple reasons for not taking our own lives. So the only way we can really tell. The only way we can isolate the operative motive. For someone who doesn't take his or her life is to think to imagine someone who is miserable.

And who despite having an absolutely miserable life. Nonetheless read. Ignas is the duty to preserve oneself. And so does not commit suicide. That's the force of the example. Is to bring out the motive that matters. And the motive that matters for. Reality is doing the right thing for the sake of duty. Let me just give you a couple of other examples. The better business bureau. What's their. Their slogan the slogan of. The better business bureau. Honesty is the best policy. It's also the most profitable. This is the better business bureau's. Full page ad in the new york times.

Honesty. It's as important as any other asset. Because a business that deals in truth openness and fair value. Cannot help but do well. Come join us and profit from it what we can say about the moral worth of the. Honest dealings of members of the better business bureau what would he say that here's a perfect example. That if this is the reason that these companies. Deal honestly with their customers. Their action lacks. Moral worth. This is can't. Point or a couple of years ago at the university of maryland there was a problem with cheating. And so they initiated. An honor system. And they created a program with local merchants. That if you signed. The honor pledge a pledge not to cheat.

You would get discounts of candide twenty five percent at local shops. Well what would you think of someone motivated to uphold an honor code. With the. But this count. It's the same missed. Const shopkeeper. The point is what matters is the quality of the will the character of the motive. And the relevant motive to morality. Can only be the motive of duty. Not the motive of inclination. And when i act out of duty. When i resist. As my motive for acting. Inclinations or self-interest. Even sympathy and altruism. Only then am i acting freely. Only then am i acting. Autonomous really. Only then is my will not determined. Or governed.

By extremal considerations. That's the link between contactee of freedom and of morality. Now i want to pause here. To see if all of this is clear. Or if you have some questions. Or puzzles. They can be questions of clarification or. They can be challenges. If you want to challenge this idea that only. The motive of duty confers moral worth on the action. What do you think yes. Yeah i actually have two questions of clarification. The the first is. There seems to be an aspect of this that makes it sort of. Self-defeating in there. Once you're conscious of what morality is. You can sort of alter your motive to achieve that end of of morality and. Save me in it give me an example of what you have in mind. The shopkeeper example. If you see.

Decides that he wants to give the person the money. To do the right thing and he and he'd seismo to do so because you want to be moral than isn't that sort of defeating. Trying to. Is not really feeling the purity of his actions. If if if moral is a term and by as a motive his motive is is' motive is going to act morally. So you're imagining a case. Not of the purely selfish calculating shopkeeper. But everyone who says. Well he may consider. Short changing the customer. But then he says. Not. Well my reputation might suffer if word gets out. But instead he says. Actually i would like to be the kind of. Honest person who gives the right change to customers. Simply because it's the right thing to do or simply because i want to be moral. Because i want to be moral. I want to be a good person and show i'm going to conform all of my actions to what morality requires.

It's a subtle point. It's a good question. Kant does acknowledge. You're pressing content an important point here. Kant does say there has to be some incentive to obey the moral law. It can't be a self interested incentive. That would defeat it. By definition. So he speaks of a different kind of incentive from an inclination he speaks of reverence for the moral law. So if that chart keeper says. I want to develop as. Reverence for the moral law. Until i'm going to act. And show i'm going to do the right thing. Then i think he's there. He's there as far as kant concerned. Because he's formed his motive. His

will is. Conforming to the moral law. Once he sees the importance of it. So it would count. It would count right. And secondly very quickly. What stops morality from becoming completely objective. In this point. What steps were elevating from the callee completely subjective like. How can. If there's. If morally is it morally is completely determined by your morals then how can you apply this already that is also a great question what's your name. When it was a matter of marty. All right. If. Acting morally means and acting according to a moral law. Out of duty. And if it's also. To act freely. In the sense of autonomy asli. It must mean that i'm acting according to a law that i give myself that's what it means to act autonomous like somebody is right about

that. But that does raise a really interesting question. If acting out tandem asli means acting according to a lot i give myself. That's how i escape. The chain of cause and effect in the laws of nature. What's to guarantee that the law i give myself. When i'm acting out of duty. Is the same as the law that o'malley is giving himself. And that each of you gives yourselves. Well here's the question. How many moral laws from contra point of view are there in this room where there are a thousand or is there one. He thinks there is one which in a way does go back to this question all right what is the moral law what does it tell us.

So what guarantee is. It sounds like. To act autonomously is act to act according to one's conscience according to alarming it's when self. But what guarantees that we. If we all exercise our reason. We will come up with one in the same moral law. That's what a man who wants to know. Here's can chance or. The reason. That leads us to the law. We give ourselves as autonomous beings. Is a reason. It's a kind of practical reason that we share as human beings. It's not. Idiosyncratic. The reason we need to respect the dignity of persons. Is that we're all rational beings we all have the capacity for reason. And it's the exercise of that capacity for reason. Which exists.

And differentiated. In all of us. That makes us worthy of dignity. All of us. And since it's the same capacity for reason. And qualified by particular. Autobiographies in life circumstances. It's the same universal capacity for reason that delivers the moral law. It turns out to to act autonomously. Is to act according to a law. We give ourselves exercising our reason. That is the reason we share with everyone. As rational beings. That the particular reasons we have given our upbringings our particular values our particular interests. It's pure practical reason. In cannes terms. Which legislate. A priori. Regardless of any particular. Contingent. Or empirical ends.

Well what more a lot with that kind of reason to live or what is its content. To answer that question. You have to read the ground work. And will continue with that question next time. Well can't. Morally speaking. Suicide is on a par with murder. Is on a par with murder because what we violate. When we take a life. When we take someone's life. Ours or somebody else. We use. That person. We use a rational being. We use humanity as a means. And so we fail to respect humanity as in any

day we turn back to can't before we do. Remember this is the week. By the end of which. All of you will basically get can't figure out what he's up to. You're laughing. You know. It will happen. Can't ground work. Is about two big questions. First. What is the supreme principle of morality. Second. How is freedom. Possible. Two big questions. Now. One way of making your way through. This dense philosophical book.

Is to bear in mind as i said about positions or contrasts. Or dualisms. That are related. Today i'd like to talk about them. Today we're going to answer the question. What according to current is the supreme principle of morality. And in answering that question in working our way out to constance or to that question. It will help to bear in mind. Three contrasts or dualisms. That concepts out. The first you remember. Had to do with the motive. According to which we act. And according to kant only one kind of motive.

Is consistent with morality. The motive of duty. Doing the right thing for the right reason. What other kind of motives are there. Can't sums them up in the category of inclination. Every time. The motive. For what we do is to satisfy a desire or a preference. That we may have to pursue some interest. We're acting out of inclination. Now. Let me pause to see if in thinking about. The question of the motives of duty to goodwill. See if any of you has a question about that much of consequence. Or is everybody happy with this distinction. What do you think. Go ahead. When you make that distinction between due to an inclination is there ever any moral action. Ever i mean you could always kind

of probably find some selfish selfish motive cancer. Maybe very often people do have self interested motives. When they act. Can't wouldn't dispute that. But what kind is saying is that in so far as we act morally. That is him so far as our actions have moral worth. What confers moral worth. Is precisely. Our capacity to rise above self-interest and prudence and inclination and. To act out of duty. Some years ago i read about a spelling bee and. There was a young man who was declared the winner of the spelling bee. A kid named andrew thirteen years

old the winning word the word that he was able to spell. Was echolalia. This he would know what echolalia is but. It's not some type of flower and no it means the tendency to repeat. As an echo to repeat what you've heard. Anyhow. He says he misspelled it actually. But the judges misheard him they thought it spelled it correctly. And awarded him. That championship. Of the national spelling bee and. He went to the judges. Afterward. And said. Actually i misspelled it. I don't deserve the prize. And he was regarded as a moral hero. And he was written up in the new york times. Miss speller. Is a spelling bee. Hero. There's hand you with this proud mother.

And when he was interviewed afterwards. Listen to this when he was interviewed afterwards. He said quote. The judges that i had a lot of integrity. But then he added. That part of his motive was quote. I didn't want to feel like a slime. All right well when i can say go ahead. I guess it would depend on whether or not. That was a marginal reason. Or the predominant reason. In. Whether or not and why he decided to confess that he didn't actually spell the word correctly. Good and what's your name. Vasco. That's very interesting is there anyone else who has a view about this. This is shows that kant's principle is too stringent. Too demanding. What we can say about this. Yes.

I think that can actually say stay in the stirrup your motivation that comes out of duty which kills the action moral growth. So it's like for example in this case. He might have more than one motive. He might have the motive of not feeling like this line. And he might have to notice of doing the right thing for. In and of itself. Out of duty. And so while there is more than one motivation going on there. Does not mean that action is devoid of moral worth. Just because he has. One other motive. So because the motive. Which involves duty is what gives it the moral good. And once your name. Judith. Well. Judith i think that your account actually is true to card. It's fine to have sentiments. And feelings. That support doing the right thing. Provided they don't provide. The reason for acting. So i think judith actually has mounted a pretty good defensive kind on this question.

Of the motive of duty. Thank you. Now let's go back to the. Three contrasts. It's clear at least what can means. When he says that. For an action to have moral worth. It must be done for the sake of duty. Not out of inclination. But as we began to see last time. There's a connection between kant stringent notion of morality. And his specially demanding. Understanding of freedom. And that leads us to the second contrast. The link between morality and freedom. The second contrasts described two different ways that my will can be determined. Autonomous flee. And head around i'm a slave. And according to current. I'm only free. When my will is determined. Autonomous flee. Which means what.

According to a law that i give myself. We must be capable if we're capable of freedom is autonomy we must be capable of acting according. Not to a law that's given or imposed on us. But according to a law we give ourselves. But where could such a law come from the law that we give ourselves. Reasons. If reason. Determines my will. Then. The will becomes the power to choose. Independent of the dictates of nature or. Nation. Or circumstance. So connected with kant demanding notions of morality and freedom. Is especially demanding notion of reason. But how can. Reason. Determine the will.

There are two ways. And this leads to the third contrast. Cunt says. There are two different command. Of reason. And a command of reason can cause an imperative. And imperative is simply an ought one kind of imperative perhaps the most familiar kind. Is a hypothetical. Imperative. Hypothetical imperatives. Use instrumental reason. If you want x.. Then do y.. It's means. N's reasoning. If you want a good business reputation. Then don't short change your customers. Word make it out. That's a hypothetical imperative. If the action would be good. Slowly as a means to something else can't write. The imperative is hypothetical. If the action is represented as good in

itself. And therefore as necessary for a will which. Of itself accords with reason. Then the imperative is. Categorical. That's the difference between a categorical imperative and a hypothetical one. A categorical imperative commands. Categorically. Which just means without reference to or dependent on any further. Purpose. And so you see the connection. Among these three. Parallel. Contrast to be free in the sense of autonomous. Requires that i act. Not out of the hypothetical imperative. But out of a categorical imperative. And so you see by these three contrasts can't. Reason his way. Brings us up

to his derivation of the categorical imperative. Well this leaves us. One big question. What is the categorical imperative. What is the supreme. Principle of morality. What is it commands of us. Kind gives three versions. Three formulations of the categorical imperative. I want to mention two. And then see what you think of them. The first version the first formula. He calls the formula. Of the universal law. Act. Only on that maxim. Whereby you can at the same time will. That it should become a universal law and by maxim. When it can't mean he means. A rule that explains. The reason for what you're doing a principle. For example. Promise keeping suppose i need money. I need one hundred dollars.

Desperately. And i know i can't pay it back any time soon. I've come to you and make you a promise a false promise when i know i can keep. Please give me a hundred dollars today. Lend me the money. I will repay you next week. Is that consistent with the categorical imperative that false promise contests no. And the test. The way we can determine. That the false promises at odds with the categorical imperative. Is try to universal light. Universalized the maxim upon which you're about to act. If everybody made false promises when they needed money. Then nobody would believe those promises there would be no such thing as a promise. And so there would be a contradiction.

The maxim universalized would undermine itself. That's the test. That's how we can know that the false promise is wrong. Well what about the formula of the universal law. You find it persuasive. What do you think. For had. I have a question about the difference between categorical ism and. Hypothesis that. If you're going to react. Between categorical and hypothetical medical. Here. Imperatives. Right. If you're going to act with a categorical imperative. So that the maxim doesn't undermine self. It sounds like. I am going to do x.. Because i want. Why. I am going to not lie. In dire need.

Because i want the world to function in such a way that. Promises are kept. And i don't want to liquidate the practice of promises. Right. It sounds like justifying a means by an end. It seems like an instance of consequentialist reasoning. Your brain. And what's your name. Tim tim. Without him. John stuart mill agreed with you. He made. He made this criticism. Of current he said. If i universalized the maximun find that the whole practice of promise keeping would be destroyed if universalized. I must be appealing. Somehow to consequences if that's the reason not to tell a false promise. So the chance to it mel agreed with that criticism against conde.

But chance to mill was wrong. You're in good company though. You're in good company. Tim. Qantas often read. As tim. Just read him and said peeling to consequences. The world would be worse off if. Everybody lied. Because then no one could rely on anybody else's word. Therefore. You shouldn't lie. That's not what kind of saying exactly. Although it's easy to interpret him as saying that. I think what he's saying is that this is the test. This is the test of whether the maxim. Corresponds with a categorical imperative. It isn't exactly the reason. It's not the reason. The reason you should universalize to test your maxim. Is to see whether you are privileging.

Your particular needs and desires. Over everybody else's. It's a way of pointing to this feature and this demand of the categorical imperative that the reasons for your action shouldn't depend for their justification. And your interest. Your needs. Your special circumstances. Being more important. Then somebody else. That i think is the moral intuition lying behind universalize ation test. So let me spell out the second. Can't second version of the categorical imperative. Perhaps in a way that's more intuitively accessible than. The formula of universal law. It's the formula. Of humanity. As an end. Can introduces. The second version of the categorical imperative.

But the following line of argument. We can't base a categorical imperative. In any particular interest purposes or and. Because then it would be only relative to the person whose ends they were. But suppose. There were something. Whose existence. Has in itself an absolute value. An end in itself. Then in it and. In it alone. Would there be. The ground. Of a possible categorical imperative. Well what is there. That we can think of as having its end in itself. Contents or is this. I say that man. And in general. Every rational being exists. As an end in himself. Not merely as a means for arbitrary use. By this or that will. And here can distinguishes between persons on the one

hand and things. On the other. Rational beings or persons. They don't just have a relative value for us. But if anything has they have an absolute value. And intrinsic value. That is rational beings have dignity. They are worthy of reverence and respect. This line of. Reasoning leads current to the second formulation of the categorical imperative. Which is this. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity. Whether in your own person. Or in the person. Of any other never simply as a means. But always at the same time. As an end. So that's the formula. Of humanity. As an end. The idea that human beings as rational beings. Are ends in themselves. Not open to use. Merely as a means.

When i make a false promise to you. I'm using you as a means to my ends. To my desire for the hundred dollars. And so i'm failing to respect you and failing to respect your dignity. I mean your collating you. Now consider the example of the duty. Against suicide. Murder and suicide. Are at odds with the categorical imperative why. If i murder someone. I'm taking their life. For some purpose. Either because i'm a hired killer or i'm in the throes of some great anger and passion. While i have some interest some purpose. That's particular. For the sake of which i'm using them as a means. Merger

violate the categorical imperative for kant morally speaking. Suicide is on a par with murder. It's on a par with murder because what we violate. When we take a life. When we take someone's life. Ours or somebody else's. We use. That person. We use a rational being. We use humanity as a means. And so we fail to respect humanity. It's an end. And that capacity for reason that humanity. That commands respect. That is the ground of dignity that humanity. That capacity for reason. Resides. Undifferentiated. In all of us. And so i violate that dignity. In my own person. If i commit suicide. And in murder. If i take somebody else's life from a moral point of view.

They're the same. And the reason they're the same. Has to do with the universal character. And ground. Of the moral law. The reason that we have to respect the dignity of other people. Has not to do with anything in particular about them and show respect cantin respective. Unlike love. In this way. It's. Unlike sympathy. It's. Unlike solidarity or fellow feeling. Or altruism. Because love and those other particular virtues are reasons for caring about other people have to do with who they are in particular but respect for current. Respect is respect for humanity which is universal. For rational capacity which is universal. And that's why. Violating it. In my own case. Is as objectionable. As violating it. In the case

of any other questions or objections. Go ahead. I guess i'm somewhat worried about. Kind of statement that you cannot use a person. As a means because every person is and in and of themselves. Because it seems that. That every day in order to get something accomplished for that the. I must use myself as a means to some end. And i must use the people around me. As a means to cement as well. For instance suppose that. I want to do well in the class. And i have to read a paper. I have to use myself as a means to write the paper. Suppose i want to buy something. Food. I must go to the store and use the person. Working behind the counter as a means for me to purchase my food right.

That's true. You do. What's your name. Patrick patrick you're not doing anything wrong. You're not by lighting the categorical imperative. When you use other people as means. That's not objectionable provided. When we deal with other people. For the sake of advancing our project and purposes and interests. Which we all do. Provided. We treat them in a way. That is consistent with respect for their dignity and. What it means to respect them. Is given by the categorical imperative. Are you persuaded. Do you think that card has given a compelling account. A persuasive account. Of the supreme principle of morality. Reread the ground

work. And we'll try to answer that question next time. Don't. The chance to interact online with other viewers and just to join the conversation. Take a pop quiz. Much like thirty minutes and learn a lot more is it just this harvard dot org. If the right. Funding

for this program is provided by. Additional funding provided by.