Your browser lacks required capabilities. Please upgrade it or switch to another to continue.
Loading…
''__Chatting with Kant:__''
//Duty in 'Kantext'//
''__Choose Your Own Adventure - A Journey in Understanding Deontology__''
__Creators:__
Mary Murphy
Jess Stone
David Gore
Antiono Quezada
Jordan Palmer
[img["http://cdn.mysitemyway.com/etc-mysitemyway/icons/legacy-previews/icons-256/black-white-pearls-icons-media/000002-black-white-pearl-icon-media-a-media22-arrow-forward1.png"][Begin Game]]
You are a talented violinist that’s studying at the University of North Texas. It’s a Thursday night, and you have an audition coming up on Saturday for the Dallas Orchestra. You had a difficult time making friends when you first came to UNT, and you recently clicked with a group of musicians you had class with. They call you and invite you to come to Fry St. for dollar doubles! This is the first time they have asked you to come out with them.
<img src="http://bestanimations.com/Music/Instruments/Violins/playing-violin-animated-gif-8.gif">
<img src="http://www.sharegif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/party-rock-gif.gif">
Do you ''__[[go out]]__'' to Fry St. with your new friends, and practice violin tomorrow, or ''__[[stay home]]__'' and get extra practice?Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"All talented people choose to drink and socialize instead of practicing and fostering their talent."
<img src="https://68.media.tumblr.com/70f5c6463d11d75e2ecde32b5684b133/tumblr_o8fe0lpWWR1s6u8i8o1_500.gif" autoplay loop>
''[[Yes->Go Out Yes Maxim]]''
''[[No->Begin Game]]''Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"All talented people choose to practice and foster their talent instead of going out to drink and socialize."
[[Yes.->Stay Home Maxim Yes]]
[[No.->Begin Game]]
<img src="http://33.media.tumblr.com/adc3e826a8527b442c0a3584402597ee/tumblr_nvupwlej5G1r3kmkso1_1280.gif">
You go out to Fry St. and have a great night bonding with new friends over dollar doubles. However, you drink a little too much and trip while walking home. You land on your hands, and break both of them. You can't practice violin for the next two months, and you can't audition for the Dallas Orchestra.
<img src="https://www.geek.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/STRANGE_0018_Layer-9.jpg" width="500" height="300">
// Uh-oh! Kant doesn't think you're acting morally. //
** Your choice to neglect your natural gifts (i.e. not practicing your violin), cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. Despite the maxim's agreement with your inclination to amusement (i.e. drinking with friends), you cannot will your maxim to become an __a priori concept or universal law of nature__. This is because "as a rational being, [man] necessarily wills that all capacities in him be developed, because they serve him and are given to him for all sorts of possible purposes". Fostering talents is an a priori concept and could be willed to become a universal law of nature.
''__[[Continue->Kant Lesson 1]]__''
You decide to turn your new friends down in order to stay home and practice a bit on Thursday for your Saturday audition. Since you stayed home, you nail the audition and the Dallas Orchestra asks you to be their new violinist!
<img src="https://static.pexels.com/photos/111253/pexels-photo-111253.jpeg" width="500" height="300">
// You've chosen the moral action. //
** Your choice to foster your natural gifts (i.e. practicing your violin) instead of following your inclination to amusement (i.e. drinking with friends) can be a universal law of nature. You can will this maxim to become an a priori concept and universal law of nature, because all rational beings necessarily will that all capacities in him be developed, since "they serve him and are given to him for all sorts of possible purposes".
''__[[Continue->Kant Lesson 1]]__''
<img src="http://www.techsavvyed.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/gif_shop_commute.gif">
You’re driving down Carroll St. on your way to meet your friend at Café Brazil when you spot a labradoodle walking on the side of the road, looking lost and in danger of being run over. Do you ''__[[stop your car]]__'', and try to go get the dog or ''__[[continue driving]]__'' to go meet your friend. That lost dog isn’t your responsibility anyway!You decide to stop your car and try to help the dog. This dog is really cute and seems quite friendly, and although it has a tag with a phone number, you’ve been wanting a new animal friend. Do you [[take the dog]] home, and keep him as your own or [[call the number]], and return the dog?
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/iYk55QSVkbzlm/giphy.gif" width="500" height="300">You decide to drive past the lost dog and go meet your friend at Café Brazil. As you walk in, you notice that there’s a poster on the bulletin board with a picture of the dog you just saw! The owners are offering a $200 reward for returning their dog.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/kx8WHAR3iVfr2/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
Do you ''__[[leave your friend]]__'' at Café Brazil in order to go get the dog, return it to its' rightful owner and earn $200, or ''__[[ignore the poster]]__'' and enjoy hanging out with your friend?
Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone who finds a lost item takes it as their own instead of returning it to its' rightful owner."
[[Yes.->Take the Dog Outcome]]
[[No.->stop your car]]Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone who finds a lost item returns it to its' rightful owner."
[[Yes.->call the number outcome]]
[[No.->stop your car]]Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone who finds a lost item only returns it to its' rightful owner if there is an incentive."
[[Yes.->leave friend outcome]]
[[No|Example 2]]Could this maxim become universal law?
"Everyone who finds a lost item doesn't return it to its rightful owner, because they don't want to."
<img src="https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-03/1/12/enhanced/webdr01/anigif_original-9759-1456852975-1.gif" autoplay loop>
[[Yes.->Ignore Outcome]]
[[No|Example 2]]You can't believe your luck...You've found a free new pet! You stop and pick up the dog. You take it home with you, but when it gets to your apartment, it doesn't seem too enthused. The dog keeps quivering with its tail between its legs, and it won't eat.
You figure that the dog just needs time to get used to its new home, and you invite a friend over to hang out. When your friend gets to your apartment, you open the door and the dog darts outside, never to be seen again.
// You didn't choose the moral action. //
** Your maxim cannot be willed to be a universal law of nature, because it is a law of nature that one needs the love and compassion of others. If everyone took lost items as their own instead of returning them to their rightful owner, everyone would "rob themselves of all hope of the assitance [they] wish for [themselves]."
[img[http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-3-icon-200x200.png][Example 3]] [img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''
You are volunteering at the Denton Public Library. One of your jobs is to throw away unwanted book donations in the recycling bin. On your way to the recycle bin, you realize no one is around to see if you recycle them. There aren't any security cameras either, and you could easily hide the books and come back to get them before you leave the library and head home.
Do you ''__[[hide the books]]__'' you want to take home with you or ''__[[place the books]]__'' in the recycling bin, like your boss requested?
<img src="http://www.bloomfieldtwpnj.com/main/sites/default/files/documents/files/recycle.gif">You put the dog in your car and call the number listed on its tag. The dog owner answers and is overjoyed that their dog has been found safe and sound. They meet you at Cafe Brazil to retrieve their beloved pet.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/3o8dp03ORMa2aXcAN2/giphy.gif">
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/EVQoEjinZSZfG/giphy.gif">
// You chose the moral action. //
** Your maxim can be willed to become a universal law of nature. If everyone chose to return lost items to their rightful owner because it was their duty, all lost items would be returned. Since your maxim is motivated by the love and compassion of others, it aligns with natural law and as a universal would provide "hope of the assistance [everyone] wishes for [themselves]."
[img[http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-3-icon-200x200.png][Example 3]] [img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''You go back to pick up the dog, call the number on its' tag, and recieve a $200 reward from the owner. On your way home from returning the dog, you are so excited about your newfound riches that you don't pay attention to the speedometor.
<img src="https://img.lcpdfr.com/uploads/monthly_2017_01/animated.thumb.gif.a404e91b5190b04a7c77d163fc76f40f.gif">
You get pulled over going 15 mph over the speed limit, and get a hefty fine. Guess where all your new money is going? That's right - to pay for your speeding ticket! Ack.
// You didn't choose the moral action. //
** Your maxim cannot be willed to be a universal law of nature. Although you chose the right action of returning a lost item, if everyone's actions were motivated only by incentive and self-interest, everyone would constantly act with duty but not from duty. An action made with duty is not a moral action, because it is not from duty.
[img[http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-3-icon-200x200.png][Example 3]] [img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''You decide to ignore the poster and stay at Cafe Brazil with your friend. On your way home, after delicious food and great conversation with your friend, you see something unnerving on the side of the road - It seems that the dog you saw earlier has been hit and killed by a passing car.
//Uh-oh. Kant doesn't think you're acting morally.//
** Your maxim cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. If it were, everyone would decide not to return lost items because they simply don't want to. Every item that was lost would remain lost. It is a law of nature that one needs the love and compassion of others, and as a universal, your maxim would conflict with itself, because everyone would "rob themselves of all hope of the assistance [they] wish for [themselves]".
[img[http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-3-icon-200x200.png][Example 3]] [img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''Could your maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone is dishonest about their responsibilities as an employee, and everyone follows their personal wants instead of their employer's request."
''__[[Yes.->Hide books Outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 3]]__''Could your maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone is honest about their responsibilities as an employee, and everyone follows their employer's requests despite their personal wants."
''__[[Yes.->place books outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 3]]__''You told your employer that you recycled the books, but you actually hid the books behind a plant in the hallway instead of recycling them. You plan to go back and retrieve them later, but during the day, your employer happens to stumble across the books that you hid. Since you didn't do what your employer asked you to do, and you lied to them about it, they fire you for not doing your job and being dishonest.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/xThuWeSDcdLmhvSuXu/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
// You didn't choose the moral action. //
** Your maxim, which is a “principle of self-love and personal benefit”, cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. Everyone would ignore others’ requests and act in self-love (where their actions benefitted only themselves). As a universal, this maxim would contradict the laws of nature, because no one would believe anyone would follow through with their requests, so they would not request it in the first place.
[img["http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-4-icon-200x200.png"][Example 4]]
You do your duty as an honest employee and place the books in the recycling bin, despite your own feelings about the books. You keep your job, and the integrity of trust in your relationship with your employer remains intact.
<img src="http://media.giphy.com/media/3o7bua1mWkDnqVR5kI/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
// You choose the moral action. //
** Your maxim can be willed to become a universal law of nature. Everyone would comply with others’ requests (i.e. recycle the books) despite their human inclination to act in “self-love and personal benefit” (i.e. take the books). This would align with the laws of nature, because people could request good things from others with the knowledge and trust that their request will be fulfilled by the person they asked.
[img["http://rapport247.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/level-4-icon-200x200.png"][Example 4]]You’re a young adult living in Denton, but you have a warrant out for your arrest on a felony charge. You go out on a date with someone you met in your English class at UNT. You were planning to tell them about the warrant, but your date is going very well and you don’t want your past mistakes to affect your potential future relationship with this person.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7btXTC8lzLspLi3C/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
Do you ''__[[avoid talking]]__'' about the subject and keep this information a secret or ''__[[tell your date]]__'' about your warrant ?
Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone pursuing a relationship with another person hides true information from the other person if they think that the information will damage their relationship in some way."
''__[[Yes.->avoid talking outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 4]]__''Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone pursuing a relationship with another person tells true information to the other person, even if they worry that the information will damage their relationship in some way."
''__[[Yes.->tell date outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 4]]__''You tell your date about the warrant out for your arrest. You explain to your date that even though you're nervous about revealing this information about yourself, you want to be honest and tell them the truth. You would rather be completely transparent in order to foster an honest relationship.
<img src="https://media.tenor.co/images/467d072fdce7489e36fd5ebaefa97a93/raw">
// You've chosen the moral action. //
** Your maxim can be willed to become a universal law of nature. By definition, a relationship is the way in which two individuals are connected. Trust, which is built by truthful communication between two individuals, is the main connection in human relationships. If your maxim was universal, everyone would tell each other true information, and relationships would be built on truthful communication and trust. Since all individuals in a relationship would be connected by trust, the definition of a relationship would "harmonize with itself" and "hold as a universal law of nature".
[img[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jcMiV_T7-Ws/VWlHMEyLtTI/AAAAAAAAADU/8ooEeTKssX8/s200/level-5.png][Example 5]]
You don't tell your date about the warrant out for your arrest. You have a great first date, and continue to see each other romantically during the following month. You really like this person, and can see a future with them.
One day, they confront you about your warrant. They found out about it while looking at public online records. They are incredibly upset that you didn't tell them the truth from the start, and break off the relationship because you've been lying to them since the first date.
<img src="http://static.yourtango.com/cdn/farfuture/Om16iwZMTVKueuciha5JHpxoT9zmnAPabTvmox9tuTg/mtime:1475097666/sites/default/files/tumblr_nudfuf8zkZ1uf7qrjo1_500.gif">
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/Ndb82bzY0VsiY/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
// Uh-oh. Kant doesn't think you're acting morally. //
** Your maxim cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. By definition, a relationship is the way in which two individuals are connected. Trust, which is built by truthful communication between two individuals, is the main connection in human relationships. Hiding information from is the opposit of truthful communication, which is the foundation of trust.
** If your maxim was universal, everyone would hide information that they thought might damage their relationship, and relationships would be built on secrets and false trust. As a universal, this maxim would make the very definition of ‘relationship’ a contradiction. Your maxim "could never hold as a universal law of nature and harmonize with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself." //
[img[http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jcMiV_T7-Ws/VWlHMEyLtTI/AAAAAAAAADU/8ooEeTKssX8/s200/level-5.png][Example 5]]You’re a government employee who has access to classified government information. You discover important information that the government has been keeping hidden from the American people. These documents, gathered from Area 51, reveal that there is an impending extraterrestrial attack on the United States.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/GXHUP8cT6ryEw/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
Do you risk losing your job and being tried for treason and ''__[[release the information]]__'' to the public or ''__[[keep the information]]__'' to yourself and keep your position?
Could your maxim be a universal law of nature?
"Everyone who knows information about other human beings being in danger informs them of that danger, so that they can protect themselves."
''__[[Yes.->release outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 5]]__''Could your maxim be a universal law of nature?
"Everyone who knows information about human beings in danger doesn't inform them of that danger, because doing so is against the law."
''__[[Yes.->keep outcome]]__''
''__[[No.->Example 5]]__''You decide not to leak the information because you don't want to lose your job or upset your boss. Three months later, an alien spaceship appears and in less than an hour, blasts America off the face of the Earth. Everyone in America dies, except the few people in your department who knew about the attack and were able to escape to other parts of the world just in time to save themselves.
<img src="http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lhnpvyLIIZ1qa6j6co1_500.gif">
// You didn't choose the moral action. //
** Your maxim cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. The government has a relationship with the American people. As shown in the previous example, it is natural law for a relationship to be built on trust through truthful communication. The purpose of the American government is to protect its citizens, and the individuals in the government have a duty to build a relationship with those citizens based on trust. If your maxim was universal, everyone in the government would act for "one's own benefit" (i.e. keeping their job, avoiding getting in trouble the law) and not tell citizens that they were in danger even if doing so could help them protect themselves. This maxim makes purpose of government (i.e. protect citizens) and the definition of relationship (i.e. a connection between two people built on trust) "necessarily contradict itself" and it "could never be a universal law of nature and harmonize with itself."
[img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]
You leak the information about the extraterrestrial attack to several worldwide and nationwide news sources. The American people are scared, but they are informed and are able to evacuate or prepare in case the alien attack becomes a reality.
<img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/MPqZXT1AheU/sddefault.jpg">
// You chose the moral action. //
** Your maxim can be willed to become a universal law of nature. The government has a relationship with the American people. As shown in the previous example, it is natural law for a relationship to be built on trust through truthful communication. The purpose of the American government is to protect its citizens, and the individuals in the government have a duty to build a relationship with those citizens based on trust. If your maxim was universal, everyone in the government would tell citizens that they were in danger so that they could protect themselves. This maxim makes purpose of government (i.e. protect citizens) and the definition of relationship (i.e. a connection between two people built on trust) "harmonize with [themselves]", meaning it could be "a universal law of nature."
[img[https://dabuttonfactory.com/button.png?t=Level+6&f=Calibri-Bold&ts=37&tc=fff&tshs=4&tshc=000&w=155&h=141&c=round&bgt=gradient&bgc=3d85c6&ebgc=0b5394&be=1][Example 6]]You’re a young parent, with an eight-year-old son named Timmy. You have just been notified by Timmy’s school that he has gotten in trouble twice in the past week for bullying other children on the playground.
<img src="http://www.extrememartialartsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/BullyBlog3.jpg">
You know you need to talk to Timmy about his behavior, but you aren’t sure how to address the issue.
Do you ''__[[spank him]]__'' and threaten him with more spankings if he bullies others again, ''__[[persuade him]]__'' by saying that each day he doesn’t bully others, he’ll get an ice cream cone, or ''__[[have a rational discussion]]__'' with him about bullying others?
Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone teaches their child not to bully others by punishing them every time they bully."
[[Yes->spank outcome]]
[[No.->Example 6]]Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone teaches their child not to bully others by rewarding them every time they aren't a bully."
[[Yes.->persuade outcome]]
[[No.->Example 6]]Could this maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone teaches their child to not bully by using examples to educate them, discussing each example with them logically and rationally."
[[Yes.->rational outcome]]
[[No.->Example 6]]You decide that the best way to teach Timmy that he shouldn't bully is by discussing the bullying situation in a logical, rational manner. You use examples, discourse and logic to help Timmy understand why he should choose to not bully other students.
You consider Timmy as an end in himself, and you don't concern yourself with how Timmy's behavior reflects your parenting skills (i.e. you don't use Timmy as a means to make yourself feel like a good parent); Instead, you devote your time and energy to engaging Timmy in rational discussions about what constitutes his duty as a person, and why it is morally responsible to act from this duty and not bully.
Because you used used this method to teach Timmy why he should choose not to bully others, he learns how to act from duty, and grows up to be a morally responsible adult.
<img src="https://giphy.com/media/RdXcGbDP3vFy8/giphy.gif" width="480" height="270">
// You chose the moral action. //
** Your maxim can be willed to become a universal law of nature. "A human being and generally every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means for the discretionary use for this or that will." Treating a human being as a means to an end instead of as an end in themselves is against the laws of nature, because it contradicts the a priori concept of a human being (i.e. a thing that exists as an end in itself).
** If your maxim were universal, everyone would teach their children to act from duty by discussing various moral examples logically and rationally with them, ultimately revealing to them why it is morally responsible to choose actions from duty. Children would be taught to choose actions from duty not through the manipulative method of coercion, but instead through "a lively presentation in examples" (Stroud). Using coercion "would be manipulative insofar as the agent himself is not choosing those ends," but analyzing and discussing examples "will not discourage judgement but will necessitate it" (Stroud). This method of teaching would allow the child to choose actions from duty instead of coercing them to choose actions with duty. The rhetorical practice of discussing and analyzing examples are a "sensed and realized subjective experience of the progression from prudential concerns to moral concerns, from conceiving of oneself as socially efficacious to morally autonomous" (Stroud) (i.e. as acting from duty).
** A person who rationally discusses and logically analyzes moral examples with their child lets their child use their reason to work through the example and choose their own ends. In doing so, they are treating the child as an end in themselves. Since every human being "exists as an end in itself," and treating a human being as an end in themselves harmonizes with the necessary concept of a human being, using discussion and example to teach human beings to act with duty can be a universal law of nature.
[[Realizing Rhetoric]]You decide to persuade Timmy to not bully by offering to buy him ice cream every school day that he's not a bully. Since you use a reward system to teach Timmy to do the right thing, he constantly expects a reward for his 'right' actions. He doesn't learn to act from duty, but instead learns to act with duty. When he grows up, he always asks the question "What's in it for me?" when weighing his choices.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KJg6Znn4V1Jcs/giphy.gif" width="500" height="300">
// You didn't choose the moral action. //
** Your action cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. "A human being and generally every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means for the discretionary use for this or that will." Treating a human being as a means to an end instead of as an end in themselves is against the laws of nature, because it contradicts the a priori concept of a human being (i.e. a thing that exists as an end in itself). Using persuasion to teach another human being to act with duty "would be manipulative insofar as the agent himself is not choosing those ends".
** If your maxim was universal, everyone use persuasion to teach their children to act with duty. Children would be not be taught to choose actions from duty, but instead be taught to pursue certain actions (i.e. not bullying) and act with duty (i.e. don't bully) because he will receive a reward if he does. This method of teaching wouldn't allow the child to choose actions from duty, but instead would coerce them into choosing actions with duty. A person who coerces a child into choosing actions with duty by persuading them has predetermined their end and are coercing the child to choose it. In doing so, they are using the child as a means to their end instead of an end in themselves. Since every human being "exists as an end in itself," and treating a human being as a means to an end contradicts the necessary concept of a human being, using persuasion to teach human beings to act with duty cannot be a universal law of nature.
[[Realizing Rhetoric]]''__Thanks for chatting with Kant!__''
[[PLAY AGAIN->Start]]
Could maxim become a universal law of nature?
"Everyone is treated as an end in themselves, not as means to an end, and everyone acts from duty."
[[Yes->Start]]
[[No->Start]]
<img src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/nsgAsw4XGvU/maxresdefault.jpg" width="600" height="400">
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''You decide to tell Timmy he's been bad, spank him, and threaten to spank him again if he bullies any other students. Timmy learns that he should choose the right action, because if he doesn't, he will be punished. When Timmy grows up, he believes that you get people to follow the rules by threatening them and punishing them.
<img src="http://static.rajnikantvscidjokes.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/1b.gif">
// Uh-oh. Kant doesn't think you're acting morally. //
** Your maxim cannot be willed to become a universal law of nature. "A human being and generally every rational being exists as an end in itself, not merely as a means for the discretionary use for this or that will." Treating a human being as a means to an end instead of as an end in themselves is against the laws of nature, because it contradicts the a priori concept of a human being (i.e. a thing that exists as an end in itself). Using punishment and threats to teach another human being to act with duty "would be manipulative insofar as the agent himself is not choosing those ends".
** If your maxim was universal, everyone would use punishment and threats to teach their children to act with duty. Children would not be taught to choose actions from duty, but instead would be taught to refrain from certain actions (i.e. bullying) and act with duty (i.e. don't bully) because he will be punished otherwise. This method of teaching wouldn't allow the child to choose actions from duty, but instead would coerce them into choosing actions with duty. A person who coerces a child into choosing actions with duty by punishing them and threatening them with punishment has predetermined their end and is coercing them to choose it. In doing so, they are using the child as a means to their end instead of an end in themselves. Since every human being "exists as an end in itself," and treating a human being as a means to an end contradicts the necessary concept of a human being, using punishments and threats to teach human beings to act with duty cannot be a universal law of nature.
[[Realizing Rhetoric]]Reason -- A Priori Concepts
Reason is the faculty of drawing logical inferences through intellect, as opposed to drawing them from sensation, perception, feelings or desire.
** From its activity, it can produce "no other concepts than those which serve merely to bring sensous representations under rules and unite them in one consciousness...[it] provides proof of its foremost occupation by distinguising the world of sense and the world of understanding from each other, and thereby [marks] our limits for the understanding itself."
Reason allows you to realize a priori concepts.
** "Everyone must admit that a law, if it is to hold morally (i.e. as the ground of an obligation), must carry with it an absoloute necessity...The ground of the obligation must not be sought in the nature of the human being, or in the circumstances of the world in which he is placed, but a priori solely in concepts of pure reason."
A priori concepts are inherently true concepts that are arrived at using pure reason, before experience.
** For example, the statement "A bachelor is an unmarried man" is an a priori concept, because it is true in itself. An action is moral if it aligns with the a priori concept that is true in itself (i.e. harmonizes with itself). Moral concepts are a priori concepts that are arrived at by using reason.
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
If you haven't noticed, throughout our discussion we've been analyzing moral examples. These examples haven't coerced you to choose this or that action, but instead have asked you use your reason to judge the situation and determine which action you should choose. This educative rhetoric is a method of "moral formation" that reveals the "disposition to choose nothing but good ends" (Stroud)(i.e. acting from duty) to the individual. Such a disposition "is an instantiation of respect for the moral law as motive" (Stroud), or (as we've been calling it), acting from duty.
If an individual chooses the action that fits with the principle of the [[Formula of the Universal Law of Nature->Kant Lesson 2]], "the individual selects and pursues ends in regard to others following the principles of universalization and limited by respect for others as autonomous beings," (Stroud) as ends in themselves, and acts from duty. "When all of this comes together, a harmonious and equal system of agents is instantiated as postulated in Kant's Formula of the Kingdom of Ends" (Stroud).
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/l2Je8p8xMjRRGrUly/giphy.gif" width="500" height="300">
[[Conclusion]]"From Duty" vs. "With Duty"
Actions can be done in two ways: from duty and with duty.
** An action chosen from duty is chosen not as a means to an end, but because it is a good in itself (i.e. a self-contained good). An action chosen with duty is an action that is a good, but is chosen as a means to self-serving purposes or inclinations.
** An action is moral if it is chosen from duty, but not if it is chosen with duty. "I assert that in such a case an action [with duty] - however much it conforms with duty - still has no true moral worth...[it] lacks moral content, namely to do such actions not from inclination, but from duty."
** An action chosen with duty is chosen from self-serving purposes or inclinations, but an action chosen from duty is chosen because it is good in itself (i.e. true in itself).
Converse with me! Use your reason to analyze the situation and choose the action that is a moral a priori concept.
[img["https://dharmamerchantservices.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/level-2-icon.png"][Example 2]]
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 2]] about the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.__''
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 1]] about Reason and A Priori concepts.__''
''__[[Jump to->Example 6]] level 6.__''The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature -- Maxims
Universal Laws of Nature are a priori concepts, they exist regardless of one's experience with the world.
** According to the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature, an action is judged morally if "one [is] able to will that [the] maxim of [the] action become a universal law." The "universality of the law according to which effects happen" is called 'nature'. An individual can use the Formula of the Universal Law of Nature as a principle to judge if their action is moral.
** The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature (i.e. universal imperative of duty) "could be expressed as follows: act as if the maxim of your action were to become by your will a universal law of nature." A maxim is the proposition that an action poses when it is still a choice, and has not yet been carried out (i.e. I am going to go out with my friends instead of practicing my violin).
In each scenerio, ask yourself - Can your action be applied universally outside the isolated event in which it occurred to you?
''__[[Learn more->Kant Lesson 3]] about the difference between acting "with duty" and acting "from duty".__''