lecture monday

Just a quick just one quick administrative announcement before I get into our content for the day. You'll notice that well, a little bit a little bit ago before we all went on break, I posted the final paper assignment description that I previewed in our last section to Blackboard. You'll note just just a couple of points about grading. Again, this is this is another essentially four credit assignment. The logic is the same.

1:06

I'm asking that you do not use AI to produce it and want to give you a space to work on your own writing. That's why it is for credit. There's only one tier. If you do everything, get an a. Okay?

1:16

Just do all the stuff. Notice that there's different stuff for each of the three prompts, so just read carefully. And then this is a space to this is a space to other thing that I hope that this paper does as with the midterm paper is to give you a space to write earnestly as your true self and receive commentary from me if you so desire it. There's only one small thing that I there's only one small thing that I did. So you'll note that there are essentially two due dates.

1:48

The first due date is a due date where you can get comments. Okay? So have it in by the initial due date, and I can give you comments back if you so desire. I wanted to give you guys a little bit of flexibility if you wanted more time to write. You actually can turn the paper in as late as the final day of class.

2:04

But if you take that extended due date, I just won't have time to provide you comments. I'll just have to give you the grade and get it back to you. Okay? So that's just a quick explanation of what's going on. All of that is described at the end of the final paper assignment description.

2:15

I just wanted to indicate it to you. In The United States and globally, I would argue, there has been a lot of talk recently about our right to free speech. I think perhaps one of the reasons that we have increased discussion of a right to free speech is because the president of The United States and a lot of his supporters are often present themselves as champions of free speech. Present themselves and and sometimes they're referred to the as as free speech maximalists. Right?

3:02

As people who say, we need a robust protection protection for for our our freedom freedom of of speech. Speech because we have not had that recently. Right? He he he you know, I think Trump and his supporters believe that previous organizations or previous administrations have not defended our right to free speech and free expression as vociferously as they might have. And one of the reasons that perhaps this administration is now in office is because they are perceived as having defended that right more robustly than others have.

3:39

A question for you. Number of questions for you. I can't decide the order in which I want to ask. When is free speech a good thing? There we go.

3:58

I knew I'd find it. We have free speech. We have we have an administration that wants to defend it energetically. When is free speech a good idea? Or if you like, why has this administration defended it so energetically?

4:23

I was going to give you examples of free speech, then I was like, I'm not entirely sure I can give you examples of free speech because all of the examples of free speech would be actually a little bit controversial. I'm like, do we really have free speech? But I'm gonna I'm gonna hold that for later. Why do we want to defend free free speech? Here we go.

5:25

Absolutely. No. No. No. And well, and hey.

5:27

We can do this in two ways. We can say, part a, we want to respect we want to respect the freedom of expression of, essentially, dissident voices, protest voices, reform voices. Right? You know, we we will have at any given point in time in our country and elsewhere, elsewhere, essentially a party in power or a system in power, but we want to protect the right to express themselves of people who are not part of that, who want change, who want reform. And also, here's the thing.

5:54

You want to protect free speech because you don't want other forms of expression. Right? You you want to say, we want to give you space to speak your mind, to speak your opposition so that you do not, for instance, take up arms. Right? Speech is an alternative to violence.

6:10

It's an it's a it's a peaceful way of expression. Good. Tell me more. We have free speech in this country. We have an administration that says that they want to defend it energetically.

6:21

Why? Now certainly, we protect lots of forms of speech in The United States and even under this administration. We have there are loopholes. There are there are types of speech that is actually not that type of speech. Right?

7:03

And this is this is another way I often engage this question. We have free speech talking about exceptions. There are exceptions to speech to our to our defense of free speech. Anybody else? Why do we have this?

7:24

Here's the question I really want. Actually, have to go with that. Don't know. I was gonna say, one reason could be, I mean because The US is democracy, and in a democracy, it's the people that vote. Right?

7:34

Yeah. So free speech is important because so everyone is able to discuss their ideas and so what matters most in a democracy is that your vote counts and your people to be able to talk about their Yes. To then have their votes be informed. Good. Good.

7:49

You need free speech. You need discourse. You need debate. You need talk to run a healthy democracy. Right?

7:58

By all means. To the extent that we have a democracy, we need speech to it's the vehicle for the debates that provide the fuel. Good. Good. Love it.

8:10

I I have drawbacks of free speech. Where are places where speech exception to our free speech rights or freedoms is is you can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Right? I mean, is a type of there are types of speech that can if if they are not themselves violent, can lead to harm. We wanna try to protect against those.

9:25

Yeah. Good. I mean, here's the thing. I mean, I think that's that's the thing about speech. Right?

9:38

I mean, you you we tend to like the free speech that we like and want to ban the free speech that we don't like. But, you know, you if the argument is, you have to have all of it. I was gonna say too, like, something to keep in mind for me is, like, I feel like we're kind of in an age of, like, misinformation because of social media. So I think, like, that's another aspect of it too. That doesn't necessarily always have to be, like, violent or aggressive, but just, like, misleading.

10:04

Yeah. And, I mean, since the Trump administration has been, like, back in power, there are not, like, back checkers anymore on things like Instagram. Yeah. So I think that definitely has a large impact too. And it's worth it is worth noting that one of the main places where this discussion has played out is on social media where, basically, we understood in the previous times that misinformation and disinformation might be a type of speech that could be policed, and now we're not going to do that anymore.

10:28

Yep. Yeah. But mis and disinformation can cause harm, by all means. Good? I was thinking, I feel like social media in itself is like a hard place to talk about free speech because technically, like, the companies who run it have the right to, like, block you from saying certain things or Right.

10:47

Like, redact or in comments or in post or anything. So it's kinda like it pulls in a question of, like, how much, like, free speech you have online when it comes to certain things because the companies have that, like, corporate power. All sorts of interesting questions about how private organizations release speech because they have a lot more latitude to do so. Yes. Yes.

11:08

I wanna get to the word right you used. However, thank you for getting us there because that's really really where where I wanted to go. In The United States, and frankly, at least in some contexts globally, we talk about free speech as a right. We have a right to free speech. Where does that right come from?

11:30

I mean, I know, like the bill of rights. Right? But, like, we we say that in The United States, we have freedom of expression globally in terms of certain documents, have a freedom of expression or a right to free speech. Where does our if we say that we have a right to free speech, where does that right come from, Ola? Bill of rights and the constitution itself, but it's not like the paper that gives you the rights.

11:54

It's like the government protecting those rights and allowing you to, like, express these things. So it it's in the power of the government to allow people to do this and to protect their rights. Good. Good. Good.

12:03

Good. Yeah. There's also some interesting conversations during the founding of United States about the detention, about what the government can do to police us, but also what what we're trying to protect. So to a certain extent, government tell me more. In The United States, we have a right to free speech that is enshrined in our bill of rights in in our constitution.

12:24

But what is where does a right to free speech come from? Now to a certain extent, it's conferred upon us by a government. Right. But tell me more. If we say we have a right to do something, a right to free speech, and you could do this with all sorts of stuff, a right to free assembly, a right to a a right to self defense, where do our rights come from besides just, you know, documents produced by government?

12:50

It's sort of perfectly great. Good example. A great answer to the question. We have a right to free speech. Where I don't know.

12:58

You could say according to these documents, where does that right come from? It's a mushy abstract notion, so you should probably ask the question. If we say we have a rights to free speech, where does that rights come from? I need it. I would I would extend the idea of the right to, like, the idea of a natural right.

13:21

Yeah. It's good. Having a right to free speech or any of our other, you know, abilities that should be protected by a government are things that humans kind of either innately have as an extent of just being human. So I think that's kind of where the idea of the right kind of sense. One of our conceptions of human rights or of of excuse me.

13:44

One of our conceptions of rights is that they are essentially innate, that they come to us merely via the fact that we are human. Right? So one of the ways of conceptualizing a right a right to free speech is is to conceptualize is to suggest somehow it's natural. It's natural for humans to be able to speak freely. Therefore, we want to preserve and protect that.

14:04

Right? Good? Other ideas? If we have rights, where do they come from? Or why do we have them?

14:11

Maybe make sure this is a robust topic of conversation in discussions of rights. Yeah. There is something there is something at least part of this discourse is this idea that just just by the fact that we are free autonomous humans, we get to do certain stuff. Right? One of those is speak freely.

14:50

Right? Yeah. I know a good thing. I just feel like this is also just, like, the idea of writing is just, like, mainly an American idea to be able to protect it, but that's just not possible. Absolutely.

15:30

So and here and I think this is an important point. Right? We, in The United States, at least, say that we have some sort of inalienable inalienable right to free speech. We often talk about it in terms of its naturalness, its basicness, its fundamentalness. That hasn't that's not true everywhere, and it's not always been true here.

15:49

Right? This is a relatively recent notion. I think about brains as, like, a product of ability and awareness. Yeah. It's not only the fact that an individual has the ability to do it, but it's the awareness that that contributes to, I guess, like, human happiness.

16:08

Mhmm. Mhmm. Oh, good. Good. That, like, there we don't name certain things as rights because there's so many.

16:14

Yeah. There are certain rights that we do name, for example, like freedom of speech because we're aware of the ability Yeah. And we're aware that that can be taken away. Yeah. There you go.

16:25

Right? Perhaps one of the reasons we do articulate these here I think this is an important point. One of the reasons we perhaps articulate a discussion of rights in that way because we're aware of the fact that that that we don't perhaps have them all of the time, that they need to be they need to be defended against horses that would want to take them away. Here's the thing. Let's just go to a very, very simple example that puts us in the kind of enlightenment era that we're talking about in this class right now.

16:51

In the time of kings, humans did not have rights in the same way that they do now. In fact, only certain humans had rights. Monarchs and nobles had rights. Plebes did not, or at least for the most part, they didn't. So the notion that somehow everybody has a natural right to do a set of things simply by the fact that they are human is a relatively recent notion.

17:12

I think one of the reasons I wanted to start the conversation this way is because I want to argue today that one of the figures we have to thank, if we like the idea of rights, if we like the idea that just because we are human, we are allowed to do certain things and should be protected, one of the main figures you have to talk about in articulating that idea is Immanuel Kant. Kant is absolutely crucial to understanding why so many of us think, as I think Dawson and Alana are articulating, that we have a set of rights that is innate to us just because we're human. That's where I'm going today. I'm gonna start, however, with a little bit of review. Again, remember the main takeaway or the the first takeaway.

18:04

Pardon me when we get this up on the board. Sorry. Was gonna throw it up earlier. That's not that great. Remember what we're doing here?

18:16

Kant in this class is the flip side of the coin from David Hewitt. And they disagree on one important question, which is when we make a moral decision, which part of us is driving the bus? For David Hume, what is driving the bus is our emotions, is our passion, is our, I don't know, our gut. Koch says, no. No.

18:40

That's not true at all. It is not our emotions. It's not our sentiment sentiment. It's not our sense sensibility that drives us. It's it's reason.

18:47

It's our rationality. It's our brains. For Kant, morality is a rational affair. Sorry. I'm just trying to slide.

19:48

For Kant we might have to do this without slides because I don't quite know what's going on right here. Transmitter found connecting. Alright. For Kant, morality is a rational thing. And to say that it is a rational there is to suggest that morality is like math.

20:08

It follows morality certain laws, and here is the great provocation of Kant that only one law is called the categorical imperative. Okay? And it is this, act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law. And I have told you that to try to simplify this, I have suggested that the application of the categorical imperative involves four steps. Oh, I'm getting it on one side but not the other.

20:37

Don't worry. This is all going up. No. I don't know why that's if I can type nope. I don't know.

20:44

There. This is all review anyway. So the first thing you have to do is you have to identify your maxim. You have to articulate the intention that drives you to do the thing you're about to do. Then you imagine your maxim, your intention, your rationale as a universal law.

21:02

And then this is what we spent time with on Wednesday and Friday. You check for contradictions. Because for Kant, if you're to say that morality is rational affair, you need something that your rationality can pick up on, and contradictions are the thing that your rationality can pick up on. And then four is a simple one. If you find that your rationale is contradictory, once you've universalized it, you just start.

21:30

You're in. That's a bad thing for you. And remember, we got an example from Kant in class last week. This is the the borrowing without the attempt to repay. So say you need money, you go to somebody, you say, I need some money.

21:47

Can I borrow some money? But in your mind, you know you're not going to be able to repay that money. But you lie and you say you're going to anyway. The question is, is this a moral act? Well, what Kant has you do is it says you identify your maxim, you universalize it, and then you check for contradictions.

22:05

And one of the things we talked about last week was why that's a contradictory act. Basically, because in that moment, you are doing a loan that is not a loan. Right? A loan is money that you borrow with the intent to repay, but you are doing a thing where you are not intending to repay. So if you are doing loan and not loan at the exact same time and that contradiction is what's telling you, that your action is wrong.

22:31

Irrational acts are immoral acts in this way are irrational facts. You just start that. You say you're not gonna do it. Now here's the thing. You're gonna say, yeah.

22:44

I know. Right? But conscious. No. No.

22:46

He says, get that you know that already. I'm just trying to provide you with some firm foundation for your moral thoughts. We want to provide a firm foundation for your moral thoughts. So how about this? Can I ask you a question?

23:01

Can somebody apply the categorical imperative using these four steps or something roughly thereof or something thereabout to cheating on an exam? Somebody walk me through it. We have a test coming up in two weeks in this class. Some of you have probably thought from time to time, it might be easier if I cheat on this test. Can somebody help just show me how we'd do it using the categorical imperative.

23:28

Thinking about cheat number five. Chad? Well, like, personally, I've been thinking this through far several times, so like, well to that, I would just speak it out. I I just have a bigger intention, like, okay. Of course, I wanna get a good grade at class.

23:49

Mhmm. Yeah. I don't need to go further because this intention and then imagine this intention as to be the first of all. Okay. So if I wanna get a good grade on this exam by cheating, anyone else can get a good grade on this exam for cheating.

24:02

So contradiction is that not everybody have a good grade because everybody's cheating, then why good grade? Good. Good. Right. So you are beautifully done.

24:11

You articulate you you articulate your intention. Right? You say, I need a good grade on this exam, and I don't have a lot of time to study. Accordingly, I will cheat. Right?

24:20

There you go. So you articulate it. And here's the other thing. Right? You can.

24:25

It is one of the reasons that Kant wants you to do this is because he realizes there are lots of reasons that a person might cheat. Person might cheat because they just I don't know. I hate this class, and I think it's stupid. Therefore, I'm going to cheat. I really need an a.

24:38

Therefore, I'm going to cheat. I am out of time because I have 14 other things to do at the end of the semester. Therefore, I'm going to cheat. Right? So you have this act and you have lots of possible intentions.

24:47

Say, I really need a good grade. Right? And then you universalize it and you say, okay. Now we say, everybody who wants a good grade in this class, everyone who has that intention will cheat. Now here's this interesting question because I think you're getting us there, Shane.

25:01

What is what is the contradiction there? This is all with the funky little thing you have to do with cons. Because we all know that cheating is wrong. It's not like we're telling us we're not telling ourselves something wildly new. We're just getting us there in a slightly different way.

25:13

Why is cheating on an exam for a good grade? At least potentially contradict Am I gonna actually take a trade for thought cheating? Oh, good. Good. Yeah.

25:24

You might be there there might be something kind of contradictory about kind of the intent for the thing that you want and the action that actually plays out. Good. Good. Good. Good.

25:32

More? This is this is why I know. Yeah. And, like, this is why I play around the course, but being on it is not your own knowledge. Yeah.

25:46

Yeah. It's like you're it's like you're trying to show that you know something, but you're using what other people know. This is an important point. Right? I mean, so so, like, it helps to kind of define test.

25:58

Right? Test is something like a demonstration of knowledge. But in cheating, you are not demonstrating knowledge. You're demonstrating something else. You're demonstrating somebody else's knowledge.

26:06

So, essentially, I think one of the ways you can talk about the contradiction here is that this is a demonstration of knowledge that is not a demonstration of knowledge. Right? And those two things don't work Or if you like, this is a test that's not a test. A test on which you cheat is not a test. Good?

26:19

Anybody else coming at this in a in a slightly different way? It's good. Here's the other thing. I mean, it's I think the other thing that happens with Kant is it's just a really good way of thinking, you know, if I it it it asks you to imagine a world in which this behavior that you're about to try is gonna come in place, perhaps for yourself and for others. Right?

26:47

And you can certainly see that. Like, I mean, if testing goes rampant, tests stop working, universities stop. If all of a sudden, it is thought that everyone cheats on tests at Boston University, Boston University's degrees get a lot less valuable. Right? So you do you can kinda go that way and you say, well, if everybody does this, things are going, you know, to go a little nuts, a little haywire.

27:10

But I think the main thing to do is to think about this because he he wants to he talks about this in terms of context. I think this is basically a testing and non testing. A demonstration of knowledge that is not a demonstration of knowledge. And insofar as that's true but this is why he's able to say things like, you know, immoral act or essentially erectional act. This is I I think the general thing, and I think this probably gets to to Sarah's point as well.

27:37

There is an overarching way in which immoral activity as defined by Kant is contradictory. And it's basically this is what he says. Anytime, says Kant, you act immortal, you are breaking a rule that you really hope stands. That's the thing. Right?

28:03

When you cheat on a test, you really hope no one else is cheating on the test. Because if everybody cheats on the test, the whole thing falls apart. When you cheat on a test, you are doing a you are breaking a rule that you want to hold because you want that test to be still valuable. You want that a that you get to still mean something because everybody else is great to mean something, and you're like, I'm gonna sneak by. Mine's gonna mean something too.

28:26

But base and it basically, that for him is is a it is a defining characteristic of his moral action. If you are breaking a rule that you really hope keeps working. If we attend to ourselves on occasion of any transgression of duty, anytime you would do something immorally, we shall find that we do, in fact excuse me. We shall find that we, in fact, do not will that our maxim should be a universal law. When you cheat, you don't want everybody to cheat.

28:58

You wanna be the only one who cheats. For that is impossible for us. On the contrary, we will. The opposite should remain a universal law, only we assume the liberty of making an exception of our own favor. Or just for this time only maybe this is this is probably your point, Gabrielle.

29:12

You know? Just this once. Not the next one. Not the one previously. Just this once in favor of our inclination.

29:20

A moral action is action rule that you really want to stand. When you I don't know. When you fudge your taxes. Right? Say say you say you cheat on your taxes a little bit or say you cheat on your taxes a bunch.

29:37

You still want taxes because you know what you love? Roads. You know what else you love? Schools. You love hospitals.

29:45

You love the law and order. You love the police. You love the fire department. You love the things that taxation provides. And so you hope that everybody else keeps paying your taxes and you just hope that you don't right now.

29:57

Like, just this one time. I'm not gonna do it. But, god, all of you, keep doing it. I hope you get this also. You know?

30:03

It's also like so so, you know, I would do what were rather examples of this. Voting. I don't know. You can go kind of you can go hard and soft here. Like, when you don't vote, you're like, you know what I really like though is democracy.

30:18

I'm not gonna vote. I mean, this is where this is a nice play. I think voting is a nice place where the moral and the legal diverge because, of course, we don't have to vote. But when we don't vote, we kinda work on the assumption that everybody else will. I try to be a good voter.

30:31

Right? But you know the one time I don't vote? I have a hard time motivating myself to vote, not in the off year elections, but in the off off year elections. Everybody I feel like voting in presidential elections, that's like the intro intro course. And then you're like, oh, shit.

30:46

I also gotta go to midterms. But then you know what? There were also elections in 2025, like municipal elections. And I sometimes do and I sometimes don't and I know I should, but I'm working on the assumption that someone else is. Right?

30:59

Like, I'm not gonna vote, but I'm pretty sure that other people are gonna go out go out and vote and put decent people in power. When you are breaking oh, excuse me. When you are acting immorally, says Kant, you are breaking a rule that you hope everybody else follows, and that is a contradiction in terms. You're like, I'm not gonna follow this rule, but everybody else has gotta follow this rule. Is that making sense?

31:25

I like this. I I think this is one of the places that it works really nicely. Points out that when we are acting immoral, we we hope that we are an exception to the rule that we want to stay in place. Now I I find this to be one of the great strengths of the system. Now I gotta I I found this to be one of the great strengths of the system.

32:09

Can you talk to me about weaknesses? Yeah. I think we should do this. So remember, this is what Kant says. Kant says you only need one rule to act morally.

32:24

Here it is. It applies in all circumstances. I think it does work pretty well most of the time. Can you give me a drawback to this system? Here it is.

32:32

The one rule of morality. Dawson, drawbacks? I think the drawback is the person that's using it because this I don't think it work in any situation for somebody who's very selfish. Yeah. Because they don't really care about what other people do.

32:47

Yep. And also, they might just think themselves a world in which people are doing the same exact thing. Yeah. That would happen. Yeah.

32:56

So, like, unless it's something like breathing, like, we're always gonna hold our breath Yep. That would never be, like, an actual scenario. So, like, for someone who's very selfish, they could just disregard all that. Yeah. Yeah.

33:07

Yeah. It is also worth noting. This is something that's really and and Kant says this. This is a tool for our own moral improvement, but it's not really gonna work when it's applied to other people. And basically, it relies on voluntary buy in.

33:20

It's like, you wanna be a good person. Here's how you do it. Well, not everybody wants to be a good person or not everybody is so unselfish that they will actually engage in this. And notice he always says this. He's like he's like, alright.

33:31

You're thinking about an immoral act and you articulate your maxim. A lot of people just aren't gonna do that. Yeah. Right? Yeah.

33:43

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, here's the thing. It it and this is Kant believes that morality is black and white.

34:15

He believes that there are right or wrong answers. He wants to build a lot of flexibility into his system, but once he does, he was like, it is going to deliver you objectively correct statements about ethics. And we're like, no, it's not. At least in some cases, it's not. Good.

34:31

Anybody else? Here's the system. Drawbacks? I think the I mean, again and I I did this is I think just back to Dawson's point, for him, individual buy in is a feature, not a bug. He was like, this is a tool for people who want to morally improve.

34:54

But then we're like, god, I want a world where more people want to morally improve. Becca? I was gonna say even, like, kind of what you're saying, but also, like, people could wanna be a good person, but just, how they were raised might teach them that right and wrong are slightly different than the next person. Yeah. Like Yeah.

35:12

It is kind of subjective, like, could decide that something is, like, you're acting in a way that you've, like, double checked it and done the categorical imperative and then still come out of it feeling like it was right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Just because, like, people like Ariel saying, it's not black and white.

35:32

Yeah. And it just kinda depends, like, on your knowledge level and, like, how you raise a little bit. Point point well taken. Right? I mean, I I think there are all sorts of other forces besides our rationality that weigh in when we make decisions like this, which probably makes our frame or suggest more opinion than we can do.

35:55

Let me get you where I started the class. So Kant believed that there were essentially a number of ways of articulating the categorical imperative. He said, essentially, the categorical imperative is a universal law of morality that can be said in a number of different ways. And your reading ends with another iteration of the categorical imperative. And, basically, basically, what Kant is saying, he was like, this is just another way of saying categorical imperative.

36:33

And here it is. Categorical imperative is second iteration. Again, he believes that this is just another way of saying the same thing. Act to treat only as excuse me. So act as to treat humanity, whether whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case has an end with all member and the means only.

36:56

This is the final sentence of your reading. For Kant, it is in another way of saying the categorical imperative. So act as to treat humanity whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end with all, never as a means only. The last phrase is the is the is the kicker. Act in every case to treat other people as an end, not as a means.

37:26

Can anybody translate for me? I have done that. I should have done this. We are, sans called, to treat each other as ends, not as means. Translate?

37:42

You think about, like, the common saying, like, do the end justify the means? Mhmm. And I think it's more where, like, concept saying, like, to treat everybody not as, like, a way to get something or a way of, like, stepping stone to a specific goal, but people themselves just getting a free person. And I guess it's a constant, I guess, like, definition. Yeah.

38:08

Absolutely. People are not ways to get other stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

38:14

Anybody else? Yes. I think it's also kinda like don't hold yourself above others. Yeah. Yeah.

38:24

Yeah. Yeah. Here here is this kind of important and this is where we're headed, by the way. If you're one of the things that this provides a foundation for is the idea of equal treatment for all people. Absolutely.

38:36

You don't you don't use yourself in that way, so you don't you don't wanna manipulate yourself in that way or your friends in that way, so you're not gonna do that to everybody, which is gonna put us all on a level playing field. Absolutely. It's one of the reasons that he's an enlightenment era philosopher or why this is understood as kind of an enlightenment notion. Good. I think in a lot of ways, it's easier to understand what the second thing is.

38:57

Both Matthew and Owens do an admirable job. Don't use people. Don't use people as a means to your own end. Don't Anthony, I like the way you said it. Give me give me your simple phrase.

39:13

I I loved it. Say it again. Like a stepping stone? What's good. Yeah.

39:17

Don't use other people as stepping stones. Don't use other don't manipulate don't don't manipulate people. Don't use people. To treat somebody as a means is to use them, is to treat them as an object, is to treat them as a tool, is to is to treat them as a a thing of momentary advantage. Don't do that.

39:38

What's the opposite of that? I always find it a lot easier to say in this what not to do as opposed to what to do. I think to treat somebody not as a means is to not to use them, not to manipulate them, not to place yourself over them, not to use them as a stepping stone. How would you then describe, I guess, the opposite of that? Any ideas?

40:03

What is the opposite of not using people? Or excuse me. What is the opposite of using people as a stepping stone? Good. You're you're good.

40:21

I'm gonna I'm gonna grab your last word because it's the word that comes up most frequently in these discussions, is to treat other people with respect. To treat humans as ends is to treat them with respect. But, yeah, just wanna try another word. Respect comes up frequently in these conversations. What is it to treat other people as ends?

40:49

It is to treat them respectfully. Any ideas? Again, it's what is the opposite of using someone? I actually think Gabriel respecting them is a pretty good answer to the question. Any others?

41:09

Yeah. I I wonder if treating them equally or equitably or something like that. Good. I like that. I like that.

41:16

Like this. I think you can do lots of different things with quality or equity. I know those are different words. We're just trying to figure it out. The other one that comes up very, very frequently in these conversations is the word dignity.

41:31

Treat them with dignity. So it's the opposite of using that. Can I ask you? Because it's not always obvious to me. Why here.

41:51

This is my last question for the day, and then I'll get to the rights conversation at the beginning of section on Monday. Why is doing this the same for Kant as treating people like this. He says that they're essentially the same notion, that these are two renderings of the same idea. Alex, why? I think that Kant's idea of morality and I think yeah.

42:32

This notion that, like, we're all in the same boat trying to achieve the same goal. I like this notion of kind of I mean, it puts us deeply in community with other people. Good. Good. Anybody else?

42:45

He says, I think I can say this with some confidence, that acting like this is or engenders treating people with respect and dignity. Why? This is a tough one. This is one that's still a lot of philosophers write about. I will also tell you, but I don't wanna suppress this.

43:10

A set of questions. Kant just comes out and says that a and b are essentially equivalent terms. Why that's true of I think it's, like, kind of what you were talking about with, like, treating other people like because the category of imperative is like, you treat other people or you do something on the premise that everyone else is doing the right thing. Yeah. And everyone else also thinks that you're doing the right thing.

43:37

Yeah. So if you proceed to not do the right thing, then you're, like, breaking their trust and therefore you're not respecting them. Yeah. Good. Good.

43:43

Good. I I think that's a really good idea. I mean, I think that yeah. Yes. You're you're accepting essentially you a universal standard of behavior for everybody.

43:51

And then to do something otherwise is to be disrespectful of them. I'll have your last last point. They should have faced everybody with their common ground. Yep. So everybody has to abide in the same universal laws.

44:02

So, like, can people inspect the video and they're hearing the teeth and they don't get to operate. This is also true. You know, you're you're you're working on the assumption that they will treat you the same way. Good. Good.

44:13

Here's the here's the I I need to I need to at the beginning of the hour on Wednesday, back up. It's time to go. At the beginning of the hour on Wednesday, I need to tell you how we get from here back to the as soon as we do that