1
00:00:01,199 --> 00:00:04,360
Kant's ethical theory is a formal theory.

2
00:00:05,480 --> 00:00:09,919
This means that Kant isn't going to give us an objective in our life,

3
00:00:10,179 --> 00:00:13,300
and he isn't going to give us our rules of behavior.

4
00:00:14,099 --> 00:00:20,000
For Kant, it was very important that rules were autonomously made by every person.

5
00:00:20,539 --> 00:00:23,120
So you must make your own rules.

6
00:00:23,519 --> 00:00:26,300
Kant is not going to give you the rules of behavior.

7
00:00:26,300 --> 00:00:33,299
He is only going to tell you which is the right procedure to make rules that are valid.

8
00:00:33,899 --> 00:00:37,740
That's why we call this theory a procedural ethics.

9
00:00:40,000 --> 00:00:41,240
Which is this procedure?

10
00:00:41,740 --> 00:00:46,320
How should I make my moral rules so that they are valid and acceptable?

11
00:00:47,640 --> 00:00:52,320
Kant thinks that rules are valid if they follow the categorical imperative,

12
00:00:52,740 --> 00:00:54,880
which can be stated in different ways.

13
00:00:54,880 --> 00:01:02,740
The categorical imperative is the rule to make your norms, the procedure, the way to create them.

14
00:01:04,969 --> 00:01:09,390
Firstly, we can state the categorical imperative saying this.

15
00:01:10,670 --> 00:01:16,590
Make rules of behavior that you can really want to become a universal law.

16
00:01:17,670 --> 00:01:18,810
What does this mean?

17
00:01:18,810 --> 00:01:29,129
I must make my rules of behavior thinking what would happen if everybody decided the same rules

18
00:01:29,129 --> 00:01:39,469
for themselves. Can I really desire that this happens? Is this a good situation? If the answer

19
00:01:39,469 --> 00:01:47,629
is yes, then the rules are valid. If the answer is no, then the rules are not valid. Let me give

20
00:01:47,629 --> 00:01:55,010
you an example. Suppose that I take the following rule of behavior. I am going to lie whenever it

21
00:01:55,010 --> 00:02:03,969
is convenient for me. Now, is this rule correctly made? Have I followed the right procedure? Does

22
00:02:03,969 --> 00:02:11,370
this rule respect the categorical imperative? To know it, I must imagine what would happen

23
00:02:11,370 --> 00:02:19,379
if everybody decided the same? Can I really desire to live in a world where everybody

24
00:02:19,379 --> 00:02:28,400
can lie when they want? Is this a desirable situation? Of course not. When I say that I

25
00:02:28,400 --> 00:02:34,840
am going to lie whenever it is convenient, what I actually want is that I am going to lie when I

26
00:02:34,840 --> 00:02:39,500
want, but I want other people to tell me the truth. Because in a world where I don't know

27
00:02:39,500 --> 00:02:47,900
if other people are telling lies to me, there is no trust and I cannot really know if other people

28
00:02:47,900 --> 00:02:54,639
are trustworthy. This is not a desirable situation. I don't really want this to be a universal rule.

29
00:02:54,639 --> 00:03:00,520
What I want is to be an exception. I am going to lie. All the rest of the people are going to tell

30
00:03:00,520 --> 00:03:09,240
the truth. This is what is forbidden in Kant's ethics. You cannot make rules for yourself that

31
00:03:09,240 --> 00:03:17,819
are exceptional, you must imagine the possibility that everyone uses them, and only if the rules

32
00:03:17,819 --> 00:03:28,949
can be universalizable, then they are correct. There is another way to express this. There is

33
00:03:28,949 --> 00:03:38,090
another way to state the categorical incorrect. This other way says, make rules that respect

34
00:03:38,090 --> 00:03:45,930
always people's dignity. Actually, the second formulation is equivalent to the

35
00:03:45,930 --> 00:03:51,750
first. Let's see it with the previous example. What happens if my rule of

36
00:03:51,750 --> 00:03:57,069
behavior is I am going to lie whenever it is convenient for me? This doesn't

37
00:03:57,069 --> 00:04:02,770
respect human dignity because if I am going to lie is to take advantage of you.

38
00:04:02,770 --> 00:04:06,669
I want to manipulate you for my own benefit.

39
00:04:07,189 --> 00:04:09,330
This means I am not respecting your dignity.

40
00:04:09,750 --> 00:04:11,909
I am not treating you as a person.

41
00:04:12,449 --> 00:04:17,750
I am treating you as an instrument, as a means to obtain my goals,

42
00:04:18,750 --> 00:04:22,990
and not as an end in yourself as a person.

43
00:04:24,089 --> 00:04:26,769
This is what is forbidden in Kant's theory.

44
00:04:27,189 --> 00:04:30,250
You cannot make rules that treat people like instruments,

45
00:04:30,250 --> 00:04:37,410
Because people are not instruments, people have dignity, and they must be treated with respect.

46
00:04:38,230 --> 00:04:43,670
So, the categorical imperative in both formulations gives you the same clues.

47
00:04:44,629 --> 00:04:47,970
Those rules that satisfy the categorical imperative are correct.

48
00:04:48,430 --> 00:04:51,389
Those that don't are not morally acceptable.