Londoniyyah - Part 7 - Deontological Ethics | Mohammed Hijab (2021-11-11) #

0:00:13 how are you guys doing and welcome to
0:00:15 this new session that we're going to be
0:00:16 talking about deontological ethics in
0:00:18 what is this the ontological ethics that
0:00:20 we are talking about we are going to
0:00:22 discuss what deontological ethics is
0:00:24 especially in conjunction with this main
0:00:25 proponent which is immanuel kant
0:00:27 probably one of the most
0:00:29 if not arguably the most prolific
0:00:32 enlightenment philosopher
0:00:34 that probably existed
0:00:35 but before we do all of that we're going
0:00:37 to read the poem and come back and
0:00:40 explain it
0:00:41 firstly
0:01:05 right
0:01:06 now what we're going to do now is look
0:01:08 at some of the things
0:01:09 that kant said but before we go into
0:01:12 that it should be noted that in the
0:01:13 liberal tradition really there are two
0:01:15 main schools of thought the first is
0:01:17 well you could say two schools of
0:01:19 thought which
0:01:20 act as a basis for liberalism
0:01:23 first as we've discussed last time which
0:01:24 is utilitarianism js mill we spoke about
0:01:27 jeremy bentham pain and pleasure the
0:01:29 great is good for the greatest number
0:01:31 okay that's one thing the other thing is
0:01:33 this deontological ethics which in many
0:01:35 ways is the opposite of utilitarianism
0:01:38 very ironically it's the opposite and
0:01:41 it forms the basis for many people
0:01:44 of uh what constitutes deontological uh
0:01:47 sorry what constitutes the base of
0:01:48 liberalism
0:01:50 so
0:01:50 actually it's important to note that in
0:01:52 moral philosophy or in ethics yeah
0:01:55 usually in the western tradition is
0:01:57 divided into three different things okay
0:02:00 it's divided into deontological ethics
0:02:03 consequentialism number two and number
0:02:06 three virtue ethics okay now we are not
0:02:08 going to cover virtue ethics in any
0:02:10 level of detail in this course virtue
0:02:12 ethics is connected with hellenistic
0:02:15 philosophy
0:02:17 in particular aristotle who wrote a book
0:02:18 on virtue ethics virtue ethics just
0:02:21 quickly is about
0:02:22 not prescriptive or descriptive even
0:02:25 it's to do with virtues as it says on
0:02:28 the tin okay so it's about for example
0:02:31 he would say there's like a goldilocks
0:02:32 zone i mean not this language but the
0:02:35 goldilocks zone of not being too hasty
0:02:37 not being too
0:02:39 brave uh not being too um
0:02:42 cowardly but being brave and that's
0:02:43 that's that's where the virtue is
0:02:45 there's it's about what kind of
0:02:46 characteristics you have rather than
0:02:47 what you should do and what you
0:02:48 shouldn't do whereas with both
0:02:50 consequentialism and deontological
0:02:52 ethics it's about what you should do and
0:02:53 what you shouldn't do whereas for
0:02:55 for aristotle and those who followed him
0:02:58 it was about how you should be rather
0:03:00 than what you should do
0:03:02 but this how you should be rather than
0:03:04 what you should do although it sounds
0:03:05 very nice
0:03:07 especially in self-development uh terms
0:03:09 it's not very applicable when it comes
0:03:11 to legislation i mean you can't really
0:03:13 put that into
0:03:14 law you can't translate that into law
0:03:16 but this is illegal this is legal this
0:03:18 is right this is wrong
0:03:19 and so on and so because of that it's
0:03:21 not featured
0:03:23 in the discourses in modern times as
0:03:25 much as the other two have which is
0:03:26 consequentialism on the one hand as i
0:03:28 say
0:03:29 and the ontological ethics which is what
0:03:30 we're going to be talking about today
0:03:32 consequentialism or utilitarianism which
0:03:34 we've discussed already which is the
0:03:35 greatest good for the greatest number is
0:03:37 a form of consequentialism okay is a
0:03:40 form of consequentialism it's very
0:03:42 important consequentialism is idea that
0:03:44 what you do is based on or the goodness
0:03:47 or the badness of whatever you do is
0:03:48 based on the consequences
0:03:50 so if i do something and it causes a lot
0:03:53 of harm for people
0:03:55 that consequence is a bad consequence
0:03:57 and therefore morality will be based on
0:04:00 whether the bad is more than the good or
0:04:02 the good is more than the bad
0:04:04 and that is utilitarianism obviously is
0:04:06 an extension of that is saying the
0:04:08 greatest good for the greatest number we
0:04:09 want to minimize the most pain for the
0:04:11 most people
0:04:12 now deontological ethics says
0:04:16 the ontological ethics
0:04:19 is it says no it says this is not how we
0:04:22 should base our morality
0:04:24 we should base our morality on something
0:04:26 referred to as good will okay we're not
0:04:29 doing it because of its consequences
0:04:31 we're doing it because
0:04:33 it's good in and of itself it has
0:04:35 intrinsic value
0:04:38 so on the one hand consequentialism
0:04:40 utilitarianism
0:04:42 or utilitarianism which is
0:04:44 consequentialist
0:04:45 has what you call instrumental value
0:04:49 okay instrumental value whereas
0:04:51 deontological ethics says no it's
0:04:53 intrinsic value i'm doing it not because
0:04:55 of the consequences
0:04:56 but because it's good in and of itself
0:04:59 okay now obviously as you're thinking
0:05:00 here where do we stand on the on the
0:05:02 issues as muslims
0:05:04 are we on are we consequentialists some
0:05:07 are we deontological
0:05:09 and just to put it out there and it will
0:05:11 come to that in the poem but we're
0:05:13 neither or
0:05:15 we're both
0:05:16 okay this is the answer
0:05:18 we say that there are some times where
0:05:20 being consequentialist is the right
0:05:22 thing to do
0:05:23 and other times where being
0:05:24 consequentialist
0:05:26 is not the right thing to do and and
0:05:27 following
0:05:29 doing something for the sake of doing it
0:05:31 is the right thing to do
0:05:32 and we will see why taking one of the
0:05:35 two
0:05:36 and not incorporating the other
0:05:38 whilst it solves a lot of problems
0:05:40 creates a lot of problems as well
0:05:42 so
0:05:44 just to to if you look at the third
0:05:46 slide here you'll see
0:05:50 some of the books okay that were written
0:05:52 so immanuel kant wrote a book called
0:05:54 groundwork of the metaphysics of the
0:05:55 moral in 1785.
0:05:58 now jeremy bentham we've discussed
0:06:00 already we discussed he was the mentor
0:06:01 of j.s mill who wrote the book on
0:06:03 utilitarianism which
0:06:05 basically acted as the basis for the
0:06:07 dominant ethic of today which is the
0:06:09 liberal ethic
0:06:11 he wrote his book introduction to the
0:06:12 principle of moral legislation four
0:06:14 years later obviously he had other works
0:06:16 before that but you can see there's a
0:06:17 conversation that's being had between
0:06:19 them and they are clearly aware of each
0:06:20 other's work
0:06:22 so these are competing ideas
0:06:25 okay and not only are they competing
0:06:28 in a
0:06:30 when we look in hindsight back no
0:06:32 actually they were competing with each
0:06:33 other as it stands like they knew of
0:06:35 each other's works and stuff like this
0:06:38 so we talked about this already that
0:06:39 unlike utilitarianism the theory starts
0:06:42 with the principle of goodwill
0:06:44 and
0:06:45 what you need to understand is kant's
0:06:48 supreme morality this is what he said
0:06:51 okay
0:06:51 so i'm going to read it out exactly in
0:06:53 his words
0:06:54 and we can think about it a little bit
0:06:55 maybe we can speak to the person next to
0:06:57 us he says this
0:06:59 act as if the maxim of your action were
0:07:02 to become by your will a universal law
0:07:05 of nature
0:07:07 so what is he saying
0:07:09 he's saying your actions
0:07:11 you have to imagine had everyone done
0:07:14 what i am doing would this be
0:07:18 good or bad
0:07:20 which in many ways and even though it's
0:07:23 against utilitarianism in utilitarianism
0:07:25 in some senses in many ways is similar
0:07:28 to it because you're still looking at
0:07:29 the aggregate aren't you still looking
0:07:30 at the end result
0:07:32 but in
0:07:34 direct terms it's not utilitarianism
0:07:37 because we're not looking at the direct
0:07:39 consequences in peer groups in society
0:07:41 we're looking at the overall we're
0:07:42 looking macro straight away
0:07:45 and that's why some have said actually
0:07:47 this is a form of utilitarianism but
0:07:49 it's called rule utilitarianism so they
0:07:51 divide utilitarianism to two things
0:07:53 act utilitarianism and rule rule
0:07:56 utilitarianism and they refer to this as
0:07:58 rule utilitarianism so in a sense
0:08:02 in an ironic kind of sense
0:08:04 it is a type of utilitarianism even
0:08:07 though it's against
0:08:08 the
0:08:09 the reasoning of utilitarianism which is
0:08:11 we look at the consequences he says no
0:08:13 we don't look at the consequences we're
0:08:14 doing it for the sake of doing it
0:08:16 and that's uncompromising okay it's very
0:08:18 uncomfortable we're going to see how
0:08:19 uncompromising is
0:08:23 so he gives
0:08:24 four examples and we're gonna oh yeah so
0:08:27 before we get there so you might have
0:08:29 heard some apologetics in islam you know
0:08:31 someone asked about the polygamy
0:08:32 situation why is polygamy allowed in
0:08:34 islam
0:08:35 and uh you might have heard it from zack
0:08:37 and i call ahmed didat on these kinds of
0:08:39 people and say well look there's more
0:08:40 women than there are men in the world
0:08:42 and if all the men got married and all
0:08:44 the women got married
0:08:46 then there'll be more men in the womb
0:08:47 this is a problem
0:08:49 so what kind of what kind of reasoning
0:08:50 is he using he's actually using a
0:08:52 canteen reasoning if you think about it
0:08:53 right
0:08:55 now should he be using a canteen
0:08:56 reasoning i mean
0:08:58 that's a question for another day but
0:08:59 the point is
0:09:01 there are limitations we're going to
0:09:02 come to see
0:09:04 of this canteen reasoning okay
0:09:07 do we believe in canteen reasoning in
0:09:08 all of the things in islam certainly not
0:09:11 okay there are some things which have
0:09:12 nothing to do with that
0:09:13 and we can show easy examples of this
0:09:16 but let's move on
0:09:18 so he can mentions four things
0:09:22 and he mentions i mean he mentions more
0:09:24 than four things but four main things
0:09:26 which he states
0:09:28 are if everyone did it if if everyone
0:09:31 did this
0:09:32 it would be an impossible state of
0:09:33 affairs it would be an impossible state
0:09:35 of affairs and therefore it's not just a
0:09:37 matter of the consequences
0:09:39 it's a matter of impossibility like the
0:09:42 society would be unrunnable
0:09:44 had these things been put in place
0:09:46 and the first thing he mentions is false
0:09:48 promises if everyone gave everyone false
0:09:50 promises
0:09:51 then society would not function it would
0:09:53 be an impossible state of affairs
0:09:56 that would that and that's true
0:09:57 to many extent we don't disagree with
0:09:59 this i mean there are some things that
0:10:00 if everyone done
0:10:02 that there would be a problem they say
0:10:04 an iphone i makes the whole world go
0:10:06 blind that's not true yes it would make
0:10:08 everyone have one eye by the way
0:10:10 monocular vision it's not they wouldn't
0:10:12 have it wouldn't ever because blindness
0:10:14 would require both eyes to be here and
0:10:16 anyway so this is false even if you
0:10:18 think about it just just logically
0:10:20 these expressions sometimes you think
0:10:22 about them just with a bit of
0:10:23 calculation everything falls apart
0:10:25 but the point is the idea is you know if
0:10:27 everyone's done it what would happen if
0:10:29 everyone gave each other false promises
0:10:30 what would happen if everyone
0:10:33 committed suicide and he gives them the
0:10:34 very third thing he talks about un um
0:10:38 untapped talent like if you have a
0:10:40 talent and you don't explore your talent
0:10:41 well if everyone who had a talent didn't
0:10:43 explore their talent what would happen
0:10:44 you'd have a talentless society
0:10:46 you know and uh
0:10:49 and he gives by the way interestingly he
0:10:50 gives the example of suicide as a fourth
0:10:52 example as well
0:10:54 now
0:10:55 before we go any further
0:10:57 i want you to speak to the person next
0:10:58 year and let's talk about the merits of
0:11:00 this
0:11:01 and think about the demerits of it as
0:11:03 well like okay you're already starting
0:11:06 to think this is what he's saying if
0:11:07 everyone done it
0:11:08 that's basically what he's saying
0:11:11 what can you think of are the merits and
0:11:14 the demerits of
0:11:16 this particular
0:11:18 moral philosophy
0:11:20 and so i'm going to give you three
0:11:21 minutes
0:11:22 and then we'll come back and talk to
0:11:24 each other
0:11:26 there was a book written by machiavelli
0:11:28 i'm not sure if anyone's read it
0:11:30 it's a prince
0:11:31 you know and it was written by
0:11:32 machiavelli to it was it was advice
0:11:36 to princes to to rulers and how to rule
0:11:39 a country
0:11:40 and it's the premise of the book if you
0:11:42 want to put it that way
0:11:44 is the unjustified means
0:11:46 do whatever it takes to get the job done
0:11:49 very pragmatic approach very let's get
0:11:51 the job done approach so he'll say
0:11:53 things i'm not you know word for word
0:11:54 but
0:11:55 you use as much
0:11:58 love as possible to get them to love you
0:12:00 and if that fails get them to fear you
0:12:01 you know
0:12:02 things like that you know
0:12:04 and some of it i mean obviously it's
0:12:06 very practical advice
0:12:08 but
0:12:09 you can if you go too far in that
0:12:11 direction as we'll see today
0:12:14 uh
0:12:14 it can lead to catastrophic uh
0:12:17 outcomes
0:12:18 you can justify all kinds of killing and
0:12:20 all kind you can do a lot of things but
0:12:22 before we get to those examples let's
0:12:24 talk about deontological ethics which is
0:12:26 the opposite of consequentialism which
0:12:28 says
0:12:28 the end's never justified it means it's
0:12:30 about the aggregate total and the
0:12:31 universalizing principle
0:12:33 what are some of the merits
0:12:35 uh
0:12:43 um just truthful society
0:12:47 if you uh if you
0:12:48 universalize the truthfulness and
0:12:51 everybody's telling the truth
0:12:53 then you get rid of from you know 90
0:12:56 percent of the world's problems probably
0:12:58 so that's uh yeah so things like
0:13:00 corruption yeah a noble thing yeah to do
0:13:02 yeah yeah you can see how why that can
0:13:05 be a really good thing yeah it also
0:13:06 addresses some of the problems with the
0:13:08 utilitarianism like for example gang
0:13:10 rape and things like that
0:13:12 yes yes some of the obvious
0:13:15 examples uh the problems with
0:13:17 consequentialism yes yes
0:13:19 good point anything else any other
0:13:21 it's a good point that you said that it
0:13:22 addresses a lot of the problems of
0:13:24 consequentialism
0:13:25 obviously the opposite can also be said
0:13:27 that but we'll come to this
0:13:29 um any other points
0:13:31 what's the strength of this theory
0:13:37 i mean look just think about one of the
0:13:38 examples that we talked about untapped
0:13:40 talent that's a really good way of
0:13:42 putting it isn't it
0:13:43 he's basically d he's
0:13:45 he's immoralizing
0:13:47 or demoralizing the idea of someone not
0:13:49 using their talent
0:13:51 and he's saying it's not it's not good
0:13:53 because if everyone did that we wouldn't
0:13:54 have we would have
0:13:56 what kind of society talent in the
0:13:57 society
0:13:58 if you think about it that's a very
0:14:00 powerful thing to think it's a very
0:14:01 powerful way of putting it
0:14:03 you know
0:14:05 and it's efficient economically you can
0:14:07 see the merits in this no
0:14:08 can you see the mercenaries any other
0:14:10 merits before we move on
0:14:17 yes more fair
0:14:18 you can get more fair society of it
0:14:20 depending on how the society is in the
0:14:22 first place
0:14:23 but potentially yeah i mean it depends
0:14:24 on what society is in the first place
0:14:27 you know
0:14:28 anything else
0:14:32 anything from your side
0:14:35 not really what about the demerits so
0:14:36 some of the
0:14:38 yeah you're ready now yeah
0:14:40 it seems to run into paradoxes sometimes
0:14:42 for example if you take the
0:14:44 universalizing principle
0:14:46 so if if if everyone becomes a doctor
0:14:49 according to that principle it would be
0:14:50 a society wouldn't function because we
0:14:52 need diversity in everybody else so
0:14:54 therefore according to that principle
0:14:55 becoming a doctor should be immoral but
0:14:57 then if if nobody becomes a doctor then
0:15:00 that also uh is not a desirable right so
0:15:03 it's funny enough because there's a book
0:15:05 that you should read on this or you know
0:15:07 begin a book
0:15:09 uh
0:15:10 by jonathan wolfe jonathan wolfe he's
0:15:13 actually got a book on moral philosophy
0:15:15 i think it's called moral philosophy
0:15:17 it's very easy to read and he actually
0:15:19 mentions this exact
0:15:22 example he mentions in fact the
0:15:24 carpenter example if everyone were to
0:15:26 become a carpenter but then he then he
0:15:29 says look this emanuel kant
0:15:31 this is what jonathan wolf is saying he
0:15:33 says emmanuel kant would say this is not
0:15:35 a very good interrogation
0:15:36 and the reason why is because the
0:15:38 universalizing principle here is not
0:15:40 that
0:15:41 everyone should be a carpenter or doctor
0:15:44 the universalizing principle is that
0:15:45 everyone should do the profession that
0:15:47 they are best at
0:15:49 do you see the point you see and see
0:15:51 that is a good that is a good response
0:15:53 to that refutation
0:15:56 so we have to get stronger now
0:15:58 we have to become more powerful we'll
0:15:59 get stronger especially when
0:16:02 you want to say anything
0:16:05 applying that principle then the
0:16:07 universalizing principle
0:16:08 there's uh why is arbitrary explain to
0:16:11 me why it's arbitrary yeah yeah
0:16:13 why can you uh apply it uh in that way
0:16:16 which is like everybody should uh
0:16:18 he's saying that he's saying that if if
0:16:20 society were to act in x
0:16:23 x-way where x here
0:16:26 and if that's universalized
0:16:29 and if that thing which is being
0:16:30 universalized makes society impossible
0:16:32 to run like everyone lying to each other
0:16:34 or contracts not being fulfilled
0:16:36 promises then that thing should be
0:16:37 outlawed
0:16:40 it's a strong argument
0:16:41 and we need something stronger than this
0:16:45 to refute it
0:16:47 by everybody just telling the truth it
0:16:49 would be also chaotic
0:16:51 in the sense of like
0:16:52 uh
0:16:53 sometimes you have to hide some some i
0:16:56 like this so this very good point but we
0:16:58 will get some good examples of this so
0:17:00 have you got any examples of this yeah
0:17:01 for instance
0:17:03 if you ask me something that
0:17:05 i don't want to answer in the sense
0:17:07 no but he will say if you don't want to
0:17:08 answer it and not answering it it's not
0:17:10 telling no it's not lying about it yeah
0:17:12 but
0:17:14 okay we'll come to this right
0:17:15 let's not jump the gun okay it'll we'll
0:17:17 come to this in fact that was something
0:17:19 he brought up himself someone comes to
0:17:20 the house but we can we can have
0:17:22 we can have stronger examples
0:17:24 and husbands so many
0:17:26 relations that no that is true you know
0:17:29 and just just for just for the sake of
0:17:31 for the sake of 10b here uh
0:17:34 reminder there is a hadith on this
0:17:38 that lying is not allowed except for
0:17:40 three things but we'll come to what
0:17:41 those three things are
0:17:43 afterwards like lying does he say that
0:17:46 it's always
0:17:48 wrong yes and we'll come to that we'll
0:17:49 come to that all right let's let's move
0:17:51 on to this um
0:17:52 lying is always wrong for him he's there
0:17:54 is never enough there is never and he's
0:17:56 very clear about that there's there's no
0:17:58 second interpretation and lying you can
0:18:00 never tell a lie
0:18:02 you know and why because it's not about
0:18:03 the consequences it's about it's
0:18:05 universalized you've made it into a
0:18:06 moral and therefore you can't lie
0:18:08 okay let's move on let's move on
0:18:14 we talked about
0:18:16 he he's he's interesting and he's a he's
0:18:19 a genius
0:18:20 you can't mock him because
0:18:23 you have to deal with him you know you
0:18:24 really do have to deal with this guy's
0:18:25 not a joke you can't just come and say
0:18:27 well i've got the example that's going
0:18:28 to finish him you have to think deeper
0:18:30 if you want to finish this guy
0:18:31 um
0:18:33 first and foremost
0:18:34 his
0:18:36 he has some really interesting examples
0:18:38 he says sometimes you can have virtues
0:18:40 yeah
0:18:41 like self-control is a virtue right
0:18:43 because those virtues are sometimes not
0:18:45 good to have in certain contexts
0:18:48 and it gives the example of a
0:18:49 self-controlled criminal
0:18:51 and look what he says i find this
0:18:53 fascinating it's very interesting to be
0:18:54 honest he goes the coolness of a
0:18:57 scrounger makes him more far more
0:18:59 dangerous
0:19:01 the coolness of a scrounger makes him
0:19:03 far more dangerous because he's saying a
0:19:05 chaotic scout scrounger like someone
0:19:07 who's like a scrounger right a ruffian
0:19:10 you know a thug but if he's chaotic he
0:19:12 gets caught quickly his emotions run
0:19:14 high he doesn't think but the ones who's
0:19:16 cool and calculated and sit down with
0:19:18 his friends and and plan the heist and
0:19:21 this and that and going into the bank
0:19:22 this guy's a dangerous one because he's
0:19:25 he's calculated he's systematic he's
0:19:27 machiavellian you know it's
0:19:29 you know maybe some films there you're
0:19:31 thinking about is it called the heist is
0:19:32 that the phone
0:19:33 it's called heat yeah is there a film
0:19:34 called the heist
0:19:36 there is a film called the heist you
0:19:37 know so these are these are cool header
0:19:39 scoundrels right there
0:19:40 obviously and that and by the way the
0:19:42 cool header scroungers are always seen
0:19:44 in a different way in i think theater
0:19:46 and movies sometimes even the
0:19:48 protagonist
0:19:50 like there was a series uh it's called
0:19:52 breaking breaking bad or something like
0:19:54 that
0:19:54 and this guy he's a scrounger
0:19:58 the main guy the what's his name
0:20:02 yeah so he's a scrounger basically he's
0:20:03 a cool headless crown drawer and he's
0:20:05 thinking about this and that and by the
0:20:07 way this guy he's portrayed as
0:20:10 machiavellian
0:20:12 he's exactly machiavellian
0:20:14 you know
0:20:15 he's portrayed as like he'll do any the
0:20:17 ends justify the means in any situation
0:20:19 he's a consequentialist you know so kat
0:20:22 would have a few words to say
0:20:23 about him
0:20:25 but before we get in there i i think we
0:20:27 need to get some key terms out of the
0:20:28 way yeah
0:20:29 so there are two important key terms
0:20:31 when we're dealing with can and we're
0:20:32 dealing with deontological ethics that
0:20:33 we need to be familiar with okay
0:20:35 the first of the two key terms is that
0:20:37 which is referred to as hypothetical
0:20:39 imperatives
0:20:41 okay
0:20:42 and the second of the key terms is
0:20:44 categorical imperatives
0:20:46 and i'll explain the difference between
0:20:48 the two
0:20:49 a hypothetical imperative is when you
0:20:52 say if you study for example i'm giving
0:20:54 an example right if you study you'll be
0:20:56 successful
0:20:57 so it's prudential in nature okay it's
0:21:00 it's telling you that if you do x then y
0:21:02 result would occur
0:21:04 if you go to the barber
0:21:07 you can get a haircut and that's not a
0:21:09 great example if you jog you'll get fit
0:21:10 yeah something like that
0:21:13 and so it's a hypothetical impressive it
0:21:14 doesn't really have a moral value
0:21:16 judgment there
0:21:18 it's just saying that if you do this
0:21:20 such and such result would come about so
0:21:22 it's prudential in nature and prudence
0:21:25 prudence is
0:21:27 your ability your competence your
0:21:28 ability to do something and get
0:21:30 something done
0:21:31 it's not saying this thing is good or
0:21:33 bad okay
0:21:34 whereas the word categorical imperative
0:21:37 is is moral now and when we say
0:21:39 categorical when we say kant's
0:21:41 categorical imperative we are talking
0:21:43 about the universalizing principle the
0:21:44 maxim that we've just spoken about
0:21:47 right so the prudential thing sorry the
0:21:49 hypothetical imperative is is not moral
0:21:51 whereas when we talk about categorical
0:21:54 imperatives that is
0:21:56 a moral now so it is on his let's put it
0:21:59 in religious language it's haram to life
0:22:02 for him in every circumstance it's wrong
0:22:04 it's haram
0:22:05 for for you
0:22:07 to not fulfill your talents
0:22:09 it's haram to commit suicide
0:22:12 it's haram not to keep your promises i
0:22:14 mean for the most part these are
0:22:15 actually haram anyway
0:22:17 for the most part but we do have some
0:22:19 significant exceptions
0:22:24 and here again
0:22:26 we have some of these examples now what
0:22:28 i want you to do let's pause it again
0:22:30 and these are four examples okay
0:22:33 and before we get to the problems of the
0:22:35 ontological ethics are we all itching
0:22:36 how do we refute this guy he seems very
0:22:39 coherent now he seems very strong
0:22:42 and this is basically i would say the
0:22:43 best the west has to offer
0:22:45 genuinely this is the best the gold
0:22:47 standard
0:22:48 western
0:22:49 thing emmanuel kant is this is the
0:22:51 reason why he celebrated because his
0:22:53 whole enterprise was
0:22:55 let me try and get morality outside of
0:22:57 religion
0:22:58 this is what he got it's you can see
0:23:00 already
0:23:02 how it competes with utilitarianism and
0:23:04 how it provides answers for some of the
0:23:05 problems but we'll come to the problems
0:23:07 of this uh of of the ontological effect
0:23:09 before we do it before we do that
0:23:11 let's think about it
0:23:13 you've got four things which he mentions
0:23:15 suicide
0:23:16 neglecting your talents false promises
0:23:18 and refusing to help others that's four
0:23:21 things yeah
0:23:23 speak to the person next to you for the
0:23:24 next three minutes
0:23:27 about those four things and tell me what
0:23:30 you think about them whether
0:23:32 why you think he's saying that where you
0:23:34 think any paradoxes may be
0:23:36 where you think any contradictions may
0:23:37 lie what are the merits and demerits
0:23:40 of
0:23:41 um of highlighting those four points in
0:23:43 his categorical imperative
0:23:45 yeah three minutes and then we'll come
0:23:47 back
0:23:50 there's a whole discussion about whether
0:23:51 his religious uh
0:23:53 he has christian background or
0:23:55 i mean i'd have to look at the
0:23:56 literature i don't think he
0:23:57 he's known to he's known to attack some
0:23:59 of the arguments of god's existence the
0:24:01 cosmological arguments the ontological
0:24:02 arguments
0:24:04 uh
0:24:05 did he make a moral argument himself
0:24:06 some some claim that he made a moral
0:24:08 argument for god's existence
0:24:10 um
0:24:11 because a lot of this why is there
0:24:12 morality how you know and so on some of
0:24:15 it is he would say it's a priori we know
0:24:17 morality a priori is something which is
0:24:19 in the mind this is like you're starting
0:24:21 off with it
0:24:27 i'm not sure if that's an exact quote
0:24:28 but yeah basically something like that
0:24:30 yeah
0:24:31 yeah his whole project was his whole
0:24:33 project was he's trying to get a moral
0:24:35 structure outside of religion
0:24:40 yeah yeah in spite of that yes he came
0:24:43 after him right
0:24:45 yes yes
0:24:47 even in terms of humans wait let me let
0:24:49 me make sure that yeah he did i just
0:24:52 like yesterday okay and there's a
0:24:54 discussion about whether david hume was
0:24:56 an atheist himself as well
0:24:58 he was an idea there's actually a
0:25:00 discussion somebody said no yeah yeah
0:25:04 some say he was like a secular christian
0:25:06 yeah he came after
0:25:08 he came after like he said i think but
0:25:09 they're both they were both in the in
0:25:11 the 1700s yeah i think about hume said
0:25:14 he took me out of my darkness or
0:25:16 something along the way yeah yeah
0:25:19 all right let's three minutes
0:25:21 those four examples again
0:25:26 so who's got the first contribution on
0:25:28 this side on the left side
0:25:30 before i pick someone up
0:25:34 uh refusing to help other people
0:25:37 yes um if if it was universalized
0:25:40 then you could have people
0:25:42 helping
0:25:44 those the two have bad intentions
0:25:46 that's a really good point you can have
0:25:48 a criminal you can who would ask you for
0:25:50 help yes so give me the maps of the bank
0:25:53 right and then if you refuse to help him
0:25:56 then
0:25:57 yes that's a paradox as well that is a
0:25:59 very good point that is a good point if
0:26:01 you're you're refusing to solve other
0:26:02 people
0:26:03 what kind of people are we talking about
0:26:05 you're refusing to help criminals
0:26:07 refusing to others in some cases it will
0:26:09 make more sense than others like for
0:26:10 example doctors have an obligation
0:26:13 not to refuse treatment to anybody who
0:26:15 comes into the hospital and that's you
0:26:16 can understand that
0:26:18 but when you talk about like you've just
0:26:20 said these examples that you've just
0:26:21 used it's a
0:26:22 entirely different kettle of fish
0:26:25 any other examples on this side
0:26:27 um one of the things we spoke about was
0:26:29 that i know it seems that there's like a
0:26:31 root assumption here that it's better
0:26:33 for society to function than for it not
0:26:34 to function
0:26:36 because if you're trying to make an
0:26:37 ethical system basically from i know
0:26:39 without religion or without reference to
0:26:40 god or whatever yeah so all of these
0:26:42 things is saying that you know if these
0:26:44 things are universalized it'll be
0:26:45 impossible for society to function he
0:26:46 mentions all these things but he hasn't
0:26:48 actually said why it's better for them
0:26:50 that is a very a true point and you know
0:26:52 you know who refutes him on this
0:26:54 um john mackie refutes him on this in
0:26:57 his book ethics
0:26:58 he has a book called ethics and he
0:27:00 spends a time a considerable chunk of
0:27:02 his time
0:27:03 just refuting him
0:27:05 on this and he and he mentions why
0:27:07 universalize anyway like well you
0:27:09 haven't provided any justification for
0:27:11 it and he starts giving possible reasons
0:27:13 why someone would want to universalize a
0:27:15 principle one of them is empathy which
0:27:17 we'll actually have a whole session on
0:27:18 just empathy by itself
0:27:20 which uh paul bloom actually wrote a
0:27:22 book called against empathy very
0:27:24 interesting but why are we
0:27:27 universalizing in the first place and
0:27:28 what justification do we have to
0:27:30 universalize this is a very good point
0:27:32 how did we get
0:27:33 from from from a description to a
0:27:35 prescription and you now
0:27:38 have the same issue that we had with
0:27:39 utilitarianism how do we how do we
0:27:41 justify the premise which is that in
0:27:43 fact
0:27:44 there should be a universalization there
0:27:46 should be a categorical imperative
0:27:48 that it should be functional
0:27:51 why shouldn't there be anarchy
0:27:54 why is lying wrong
0:27:56 for instance can we ask why lying is
0:27:58 wrong
0:27:59 yeah even that yeah no but he'll give
0:28:00 you an answer for that yeah his answer
0:28:02 is okay if so why is lying wrong what
0:28:05 would he say about this
0:28:09 right because if everyone done it
0:28:11 what would happen
0:28:13 you would have an impossible
0:28:14 society you see because everyone's lying
0:28:17 to each other you can't sell you can't
0:28:18 buy you can't marry you can't transact
0:28:22 if if society was based and that's
0:28:24 to a large extent that's actually a very
0:28:25 strong argument
0:28:29 but we'll move on
0:28:31 to the problems with deontological
0:28:32 ethics and lying is
0:28:34 uh i think the best example to use
0:28:36 because he mentions lying and obviously
0:28:37 he's
0:28:38 in all cases against lying
0:28:40 and in his book
0:28:43 on a supposed right to lie
0:28:46 because of
0:28:47 uh philanthropic concerns
0:28:50 he says what if a man comes to the house
0:28:53 okay the woman is there
0:28:55 and these guys are
0:28:57 i don't know gangsters military man
0:28:58 wherever they may be yeah where's your
0:29:00 husband
0:29:02 and obviously they want to come in and
0:29:03 kill him
0:29:04 if she says yeah he's just in the front
0:29:06 room
0:29:07 all right cool come inside and shoot him
0:29:08 kill him
0:29:10 well we could that that was the example
0:29:12 he said no in that situation she
0:29:14 shouldn't lie
0:29:15 she should tell the truth does he say
0:29:17 alternate truth
0:29:19 no no he doesn't say any of that he says
0:29:20 she is immoral for her to lie
0:29:23 he doubles down on that and then he gets
0:29:25 criticized and smashed to pieces because
0:29:27 of this and this is where
0:29:28 consequentialism
0:29:30 becomes a bit more alluring but the
0:29:32 question is why would it be alluring
0:29:34 because he on his is there inconsistency
0:29:36 there somewhere
0:29:37 well let's think about it
0:29:39 is
0:29:40 one of one of his one of his
0:29:42 universalizing principles surely is that
0:29:44 you don't want people to die right in
0:29:46 the society that you know the murder is
0:29:48 wrong
0:29:50 so if murder is wrong and that's
0:29:51 universalizing principle
0:29:54 then what causes murder
0:29:57 i mean should be wrong essentially
0:29:59 but he will say no because this is now a
0:30:02 conflict of universalizing principles
0:30:05 so you can have one universalizing
0:30:06 principle
0:30:07 which contradict the consequences of
0:30:09 which will contrad will contradict
0:30:11 another universalizing principle and
0:30:13 there's nothing he can do about it and
0:30:14 it's just a limitation of his system yes
0:30:16 could you say like i'm going to kill
0:30:18 myself and then if you don't then you're
0:30:20 lying it's not condition
0:30:23 i'm going to kill myself yeah and then
0:30:24 obviously lying is wrong no if you're
0:30:27 talking about
0:30:28 lies which are not straight faced lies
0:30:30 which are speaking in fork tongues and
0:30:32 stuff now if you say like i'm going to
0:30:34 kill myself obviously lange is wrong
0:30:35 right yeah so why would you know
0:30:36 scenario on kantian ethics
0:30:39 i'm going to kill myself he's killing
0:30:40 himself as long as
0:30:42 yeah yeah it's contradiction
0:30:44 so if i'm going to kill myself no what
0:30:46 would be wrong here is killing himself
0:30:48 if he mean would you choose to lie would
0:30:50 you choose to kill yourself in that
0:30:51 scenario on cancer no but
0:30:53 if you say i'm going to kill myself he's
0:30:54 telling the truth right there's no
0:30:55 problem there if you say oh if you say
0:30:57 i'm not going to kill myself
0:30:59 well that's that's fine that's that's
0:31:00 just him telling the truth about his
0:31:02 state there's no issue there the issue
0:31:04 is
0:31:05 now we've said okay yes go ahead
0:31:08 go to the example for example let's say
0:31:10 he's held at gunpoint this guy says okay
0:31:12 i'll do it myself i'll kill myself
0:31:14 right yes so i think that's what he's
0:31:17 getting too so if he was lying there and
0:31:20 he was saying that he just escaped that
0:31:21 that still would be wrong again
0:31:23 for me standpoint but if he does go and
0:31:25 kill himself it'd be wrong as well yeah
0:31:27 yeah oh yeah but that's you're telling
0:31:29 me about implementation here i'm telling
0:31:30 you about the theory right i'm saying to
0:31:32 you that look in and of itself there's
0:31:34 issues here this if you if you do think
0:31:37 a which is in this case tell them man
0:31:40 where your husband is so you can get
0:31:41 killed yeah
0:31:43 it's going to lead to his
0:31:45 if death
0:31:45 leads to his death his death is murder
0:31:47 one of your other universalizing
0:31:49 principles was that murder is wrong
0:31:51 so you're
0:31:53 the consequences of
0:31:55 uh of of not abiding by
0:31:58 or of obeying universal universalizing
0:32:01 principle a
0:32:02 was that it contradicted one of the
0:32:04 objectives of universalizing principle b
0:32:08 and there's nothing you can do about it
0:32:10 but then we can we can have stronger
0:32:11 examples of this
0:32:13 instead of just um
0:32:15 someone coming in so we've got a sorry
0:32:17 to say a child a one-year-old child and
0:32:19 if you don't tell me this i'm going to
0:32:21 rape the child and if you don't do this
0:32:23 we can make it more gruesome and on his
0:32:25 ethic you'd have to rip the child you'd
0:32:27 have to let the child get raped you'd
0:32:29 have to get nuclear weapons i would get
0:32:31 less if you if you if you don't do this
0:32:34 lying could save a nuclear attack you
0:32:36 can imagine that
0:32:38 so
0:32:39 actually if there's a nuclear attack
0:32:42 what's the point of a universalizing
0:32:43 principle if there's no one for it to be
0:32:44 implemented on right
0:32:49 you see
0:32:50 so this is why the prophet muhammed he
0:32:53 told us right don't lie
0:32:55 you know and this things but he says
0:32:57 hello he also said this you know that
0:32:59 you're not allowed to lie except for in
0:33:00 three situations and there are more
0:33:02 these are just three he mentioned
0:33:04 obviously we know life and death is
0:33:05 always an excuse it's always an excuse
0:33:08 in islam
0:33:09 but also
0:33:10 you know for the
0:33:12 for the partners for the spouses
0:33:15 and by by the way it's both ways someone
0:33:16 says oh this is sexist and feminist well
0:33:18 i say listen even on your paradigm
0:33:20 you're saying a man to woman woman's or
0:33:21 man it's both ways it's like that if a
0:33:24 man sometimes you what are you gonna
0:33:26 uh imagine if imagine if partners
0:33:29 were sitting in the house telling the
0:33:30 truth about what they thought
0:33:32 okay like
0:33:34 uh just imagine like sorry this is like
0:33:35 comedy sketch here sitting down
0:33:39 did you think my friend looked good yeah
0:33:41 yeah you look amazing today
0:33:44 did you think this is and they just talk
0:33:46 about this and that
0:33:47 who was better me or your ex-husband no
0:33:48 the ex-husband was actually better
0:33:52 and so on and so forth what would that
0:33:55 do to relationships it will destroy them
0:33:57 and the other thing is uh to try and
0:33:59 reconciliate between two people
0:34:01 so islam says if you have two friends
0:34:03 and you can give them a little white
0:34:04 lies this and just to bring them back
0:34:06 together because the ends justify the
0:34:08 means here
0:34:09 and the third and most controversial one
0:34:12 actually is completely uncontroversial
0:34:15 that war is deception
0:34:17 imagine being in war
0:34:18 okay and telling your enemy so where
0:34:21 have you put the bomb i put it in
0:34:22 coordinates
0:34:24 you're going to lose every war
0:34:26 that's why you need machiavelli
0:34:28 you don't need manual can here you need
0:34:30 machiavelli if you want if you go to war
0:34:32 you will have a football manager
0:34:34 we have a football manager forget about
0:34:36 war we have a football manager who's
0:34:37 going to be emanuel kant who's going to
0:34:38 give away all the formations and stuff
0:34:40 like that or we're going to have
0:34:41 machiavelli i think everyone will choose
0:34:42 machiavelli
0:34:45 you know or alex ferguson or whoever it
0:34:47 may be you know the point is is that
0:34:50 consequentialism makes sense in some
0:34:52 areas
0:34:54 but by the way islamically there are
0:34:55 some areas where there's never a
0:34:57 consequential reason for example if
0:35:00 if if if somebody said rape your
0:35:03 daughter otherwise will kill you
0:35:05 he can't say what's life or death i have
0:35:06 to rape her.
0:35:07 it's basically all scholars say that he
0:35:09 has to take the shot
0:35:10 because you can't defile somebody else's
0:35:13 rights in this
0:35:15 in this um in this dimension on this
0:35:18 domain of taking their sexual rights
0:35:20 like that especially through rape and
0:35:21 stuff you cannot do it
0:35:23 so if someone says so therefore
0:35:25 consequentialism is out the window here
0:35:28 consequentialism is out the window
0:35:29 because consequentialism
0:35:32 would mean that you you can you can do
0:35:33 lots of things you can go very far
0:35:36 you know so there we would side with
0:35:39 kant
0:35:40 but other places we would side with mill
0:35:42 and that's why we believe in the middle
0:35:44 the middle path
0:35:45 now
0:35:47 there are other examples of this but
0:35:49 what we are going to do is conclude this
0:35:51 session today i think we've covered some
0:35:53 very important points we've seen some of
0:35:54 the strengths and there have been some
0:35:55 considerable strengths of this theory uh
0:35:57 moral theory but there are some
0:35:59 considerable
0:36:00 weaknesses as well i think we've with
0:36:02 this we've seen that
0:36:03 and likewise with consequentialism
0:36:05 utilitarianism we've seen some of the
0:36:06 strengths okay the greatest good for the
0:36:08 greatest number you know all that stuff
0:36:10 but also some of the weaknesses you know
0:36:12 and um in the next session we're going
0:36:14 to be going into more details about some
0:36:16 of those strengths and weaknesses and
0:36:17 going into more business but if you
0:36:19 understand okay if one understands that
0:36:22 the west western philosophy western
0:36:24 moral philosophy ethics is these three
0:36:27 things
0:36:28 consequentialism
0:36:29 i mean obviously it's more but mostly
0:36:31 it's
0:36:32 somehow sub-compartmentalized under one
0:36:34 of these three things consequentialism
0:36:37 deontological ethics which we've talked
0:36:38 about today and thirdly virtue ethics
0:36:40 which is not really in use then you've
0:36:42 understood a lot you have actually
0:36:43 understood a lot
0:36:45 and so you'll be able to make you'll be
0:36:46 able to connect the dots you'll be
0:36:48 watching a film anything that's
0:36:49 consequentialist ethics you'll be
0:36:50 watching uh
0:36:51 maybe you shouldn't be watching these
0:36:52 kind of films anyways but you'll be
0:36:54 you'll be seeing something or on the
0:36:55 news or this and that someone reasoning
0:36:57 something or this is wrong because
0:37:00 and you'll realize that most of the time
0:37:02 they'll bring about
0:37:04 a justification which is either
0:37:06 deontological or consequentialist
0:37:08 like honestly 90 of the time that's what
0:37:10 they're gonna do
0:37:11 they'll bring about a justification
0:37:13 which is it's wrong because it causes
0:37:15 this consequence the consequences of the
0:37:17 action or it's wrong because it is just
0:37:18 wrong
0:37:19 intrinsically wrong
0:37:21 you've covered a lot there
0:37:22 but both of those things have problems
0:37:24 if you say if that's what you believe in
0:37:26 then you have to justify this standing
0:37:27 up and
0:37:29 in conversation
0:37:30 this makes you a very difficult person
0:37:32 to deal with
0:37:33 but we don't want you to be a very
0:37:34 difficult person on the loved ones and
0:37:36 the close ones but only on the enemies
0:37:39 and
0:37:40 the antagonistic ones
0:37:41 and with that we conclude
0:37:46 all right so let's do a discussion
0:37:48 we're going to have one consequentialist
0:37:50 camp