[Music] Depending on your perspective, Emanuel Kant was either the most boring person on the planet, or a productivity hacker's wet dream. For over 40 years, he woke up every morning at 5:00 a.m. and wrote for exactly 3 hours. He would then lecture at the same university for exactly 4 hours. He followed that up with lunch at the same restaurant each day. Then in the afternoon, he would go on an extended walk through the same park on the same route, leaving and returning home at the exact same time every day. Kant spent his entire life in Königsberg, Prussia. I mean that literally, he never left the city despite the sea being an hour away, he never saw it. Kant was efficiency personified. He was so mechanical in his habits that his neighbors joked that they could tune their clocks based on when he left his apartment each day. He would leave for his daily walk at 3:30 p.m. and have dinner with

the same friend every evening and return home to finish work and go to bed at exactly 10 p.m. It's easy for us to scoff at a guy like this. What a loser. Seriously, get a life, dude. But K was one of the most important and influential thinkers in modern history. He did more to steer the world from his single room apartment in Prussia than most Kings and armies ever did before or since. If you're living in a Democratic Society that protects individual rights, you have can't to partially thank for that. He was the first person to ever envision a global governing body that would guarantee peace across much of the world. He prescribed SpaceTime in such a way that it later inspired Einstein's discovery of Relativity. He came up with the idea that animals could potentially have rights themselves. He invented the philosophy of Aesthetics and beauty and resolved a 200-year philosophical debate in the span of a couple hundred Pages. He reinvented moral

Philosophy from top to bottom over throwing ideas, 
that had been the basis of Western Civilization, since Aristotle. Kant was an intellectual badass, 
if brains had balls, K would have been made out of steel. His ideas, particularly about ethics, 
are still discussed and debated in thousands of universities today, and that's what I want to talk 
about: K's moral philosophy and why it matters now. You might be saying, really, moral philosophy, who 
cares, man, show me a shiny sunset, inspirational quote, or a cat meme. Well, that right there is 
moral philosophy. Anytime you say, who cares or   what's the big deal, you're essentially questioning 
the value of something: is it worth your time and attention, is it better or worse than something 
else. These are all questions of value, and they   all fall under the umbrella of moral philosophy. 
Our moral philosophy determines what we value, what   we care about, and what we don't care about, and our 
values determine our decisions, actions, and beliefs.   Therefore, moral philosophy applies to everything 
in our lives. Got it? Kant's moral philosophy is

unique and counterintuitive. Can't believe that for something to be good, it had to be Universal. That is, it can't be right to do something in one situation and wrong to do it in another. If lying is wrong, it has to be wrong all the time. It has to be wrong when everyone does it, period. If it isn't always right or always wrong, then it cannot be a valid ethical principle. Kant these universalized ethical principles categorical imperatives rules to live by that are valid in all contexts, in every situation, to every human being. Well, holy [__] universal laws that dictate all morality for every human being. Sure, you want fries with that? It's so impossible, it sounds ludicrous, but Kant made a hell of an attempt. In fact, he made a number of attempts at creating categorical imperatives. Some of those attempts were quickly ripped to shreds by other philosophers, but others have actually held up the test of time to some degree. One of them, in particular, has kind of stuck and in all

of my years reading and studying philosophy, psychology, and other Sciences, it is one of the most powerful statements that I've ever come across. Its implications reach into every part of each person's life. In a single sentence, it sums up the bulk of all of our ethical intuitions and assumptions, and in each situation, it points to a clear direction of how we should be acting and why. Okay, enough foreplay, here's Kant's rule: Act that you use Humanity, whether in your own person or in a person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never merely as a means. Okay, what the actual [__]? Let's back up for a second. Kant believed that rationality was sacred. When I say rationality, I don't mean like Sudoku or chess Grandmaster rationality. I mean rationality as the fact that we are the only known creatures in the universe that are able to make the decisions.

weigh options and consider the moral implications, of each and every action. Basically, consciousness is the only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the universe. Our ability to process information and act consciously in the world, to him, is special. It's exceedingly special. For all we know, we are the only shot the universe has at intelligent self-organization. Therefore, we need to take it seriously. Rationality and protecting conscious choice must be the basis for all of our moral reasoning. Kant wrote that, Without rationality, the universe would be a waste, in vain, and without purpose. To Kant's mind, without intelligence and the freedom to exercise that intelligence, we might as well just be a bunch of rocks. Nothing would matter. Therefore, Kant believed that all morality is derived from the protection and promotion of rational consciousness in each individual. So how do you do that? Well, let's restate Kant's rule in a more modern language to make it more easily digestible. Each person must

never be treated only as a means to some other 
end, but also be treated as an end themselves. Okay, let's say I'm hungry and I want a burrito. I 
get in the car and I drive to Chipotle, and I order   my usual double meat monster that makes me oh so 
happy on a weekly basis. In this situation, eating   the burrito is my end goal; it's ultimately why I'm 
doing everything else - getting in the car, driving,   buying gas, and so on. All these things I do to get 
the burrito are the means, i.e., the things that I   must do in order to achieve my end. If you call a 
friend to find out how they're doing, calling them   is a means; finding out how they're doing is your 
end. If you leave a party early so you can wake   up in the morning, leaving the party is the means, 
and waking up early is your end. Means are things   that we do conditionally. I don't want to get in 
my car and drive, but I want a burrito; therefore,

driving is the means to my burrito end an end is 
something that is desired for its own sake. it is   the defining motivating factor of our decisions 
and behaviors. if I wanted to eat a burrito only   because my wife wanted a burrito and I wanted 
to make her happy, then the burrito is no longer   my end. it is now a means to an even greater 
end: making my wife happy. and if I only wanted   to make my wife happy so I could hopefully get 
laid tonight, now my wife's happiness is a means   to a greater end of sex. likely, that last example 
made you squirm a little bit and think I'm kind   of a dirt bag. and that's exactly what Kant is 
talking about. his argument, hell, his rule states   that treating any human being as a means to some 
other end is the basis of all unethical Behavior.   so treating a burrito as a means to my wife's 
end is fine. after all, as far as I know, burritos

don't have rational consciousness, but if I treat 
my wife as a means to the end of sex, now I am   treating her as a means, and Kant would argue that 
that is some shade of wrong. Let's give K's Rule   The Common Sense check: lying is wrong because 
you are misleading another person's conscious   behavior in order to achieve your own goal. You 
are therefore treating that person as a means   to your own end; therefore, lying is unethical. 
Cheating is unethical for a similar reason. You   are violating the expectations of other rational 
and sentient beings for your own personal aims.   You are treating the rules and expectations 
agreed to with others as a means to your own   personal end. That is wrong. Violence, same deal. 
You were treating another person as a means to   some greater political or personal end. Bad, very 
bad. Cons formulation checks all the boxes that   we would expect from a theory of morality, but it 
goes way, way beyond Common Sense Morality. In fact,

I will try to argue that K rule plausibly extends 
to pretty much everything that we value is right and good today. Check it out, the moral implications 
of K's rule. The list below is incomplete. Some of the items K explicitly wrote about, but others are 
extrapolations that I've taken from his work and applied to my own values. My hope is that by the 
end of it, you will see the incredible flexibility of the single moral maximum to extend almost all 
areas of human life. Example one: laziness. Okay, I can be as lazy as the next guy. Full disclosure, 
and I often feel guilty about it, but we all know that slacking off in the short term inevitably harms 
us in the long term. But for whatever reason, this short-term gain versus long-term loss calculation 
never seems to inspire or move us. But that's not why Kant thinks it's wrong. In fact, Kant would say 
that this is the wrong way to think about laziness.

it's insufficient comp believed that we all had a 
moral imperative to do the best that we can at all   times, but he didn't say to do your best because of 
self-esteem or personal utility or contributing to   society or whatever. He went even further than 
that. He argued you should do your best because   anything less is to treat ourselves as a means 
rather than an end. Yes, you can treat yourself   as a means as well. You're sitting on the couch 
refreshing Twitter for the 28th time, and you're   treating your mind and your attention as a mere 
pleasure receptacle. You are not maximizing the   potential of your consciousness. In fact, you are 
using your consciousness as a means to stimulate   your emotional ends. This is not only bad, Kant 
would argue, but it's unethical. You are actively   harming yourself. Example two: addiction. Believe it 
or not, Kant wasn't a total party pooper. He enjoyed   some wine with his lunch. He smoked the pipe, but 
only at the same time each morning and only one

bowl of tobacco. Kant was not necessarily anti-fun. What he was against, though, was pure escapism. He wrote that using alcohol or other means of escaping one's own life was unethical because it requires you to use your rational mind and freedom as a means to some other end. In this case, getting [__] up. Comp believed in facing one's problems. He believed that suffering is sometimes warranted and even necessary in life. We tend to judge the immorality of addiction by the damage it causes to others, but Kant believed that first overindulgence was fundamentally the act of being immoral to oneself. The harm it did to others was merely collateral damage. It was a failure to confront the reality of one's own mind and consciousness, and this failure is akin to lying to oneself or cheating oneself out of precious life potential. And to Kant, lying to yourself is just as unethical as lying to others. Example three: people-pleasing and seeking approval.

okay, I know it's not a good strategy to be kissing people's asses all the time, but unethical really isn't being really nice to people and making them happy an ethical thing to do. Well, not necessarily. Seeking approval in people-pleasing forces you to alter your actions and speech to no longer reflect what you actually think and feel. So, right there, you are already treating yourself as a means rather than an end. But it gets worse, because if you alter your speech and behavior in order to make others like you, then you are also treating them as a means to your end. You are altering and manipulating their perceptions of you in order to Garner a pleasant response from them. K would undoubtedly argue that this is also unethical. How dare you tell me my shirt looks good on me, you ethical piece of [__]! I've written that length about how people-pleasing and seeking approval leads to toxic relationships, but again, as usual, Kant takes it even further.

because Kant was hardcore like that. Example four: manipulation or coercion, even if you're not lying, but you're communicating with an attitude and a purpose of gaining something from someone without their full knowledge or explicit consent, then you are being unethical. K was big on fully informed consent; he believed it was the only way for there to be healthy interactions between individuals. It was radical for his time, and it's something that people still struggle to accept today. There are two areas in the modern world where I think that consent issue is huge, and K would have a lot to say about it. The first is obvious: sex and dating. Under K's rule, anything short of explicit, fully informed, and fully sober consent is ethically out of bounds. This is a hot-button issue today, and I personally think people make it far more complicated than it needs to be. It basically just means being respectful. People assume this means asking for permission 20 times.

on a date, but it's not all you have to do is state how you feel, ask them how they feel, and then respect whatever response comes back to you. That's it. It's not complicated. Respect was also sacred within K's moral framework because Kant believed that all conscious creatures have a fundamental dignity that must be respected at all times and by everyone. For Kant, consent was the act of demonstrating respect. Anything that didn't lead towards consent between two people was, to some degree, disrespectful. I know that makes Kant sound like an angry grandmother, but the implications of the consent issue are far-reaching and wide, touching every human relationship that we have. The other modern area that is problematic is sales and advertising. Pretty much every marketing tactic is built around treating people as a means to some end, that is, making money. In fact, Kant struggled much of his life with the ethical implications of capitalism and wealth inequality. He believed that it was impossible for anyone to amass a fortune without some degree of manipulation or coercion.

along the way. Therefore, he was dubious of the 
entire system. He wasn't anti-capitalist per se, 
and communism didn't exist yet, but the staggering 
wealth inequality of his time did make him uneasy. 
He believed anyone who had amassed the fortune 
had a moral imperative to give much of it 
away to the starving masses. Example: Five Bigotry 
might as well throw it in here, especially since 
Enlightenment thinkers were infamous for having 
pretty racist views, which were common in the time. 
Interestingly, K, despite saying some pretty awful 
[ __ ] about race early in his career, turned the 
intellectual corner and realized later in his life 
that no race has any right to subjugate any other. 
It makes sense after all; racism and other forms 
of bigotry are textbook cases of treating other 
people as means rather than ends. Kant came to the 
conclusion that if all rationality is sacred, then 
there's nothing permitting European special 
privileges over any other nations or races.

he also became vehemently anti-colonialist. K argued that regardless of race, the violence and oppression required to subjugate populations would destroy people's Humanity in the process. It was the ultimate unethical institution. This was completely radical for the time, radical to the point of being considered absurd by many. But Kant reasoned that the only way to prevent war and oppression was to form an international government that organized and bound nation states together. Centuries later, the United Nations would largely be based on his vision. Example six: the duty of self-improvement. Most philosophers of the Enlightenment believed that the best way to live was to increase happiness as much as possible and to reduce suffering as much as possible as well. This approach to ethics is called utilitarianism and is still the predominant view held by many thinkers today. K had a completely different take on how to go about improving the world. Let's call it the Michael Jackson Maxim because K, like Michael, believed that if you want to make the

world a better place. Take a look at yourself 
and make that change. But instead of grabbing   his crotch, Comp made his argument with brutal 
rationality, and here's how he argued it. Comp   believed that generally, it is impossible to 
know whether a person deserves to be happy or   suffer because you can never truly know what their 
intentions and aims were when they acted. Similarly,   even if you should make others happy, there's no 
way to precisely know how to make them happy. You   do not know their feelings, values, or expectations. 
You do not know the implications your actions will   have on them. On top of that, what actually 
constitutes suffering or happiness in most   non-extreme situations is unclear. Your divorce 
may cause you incredible pain today, but in a year,   it might be the best thing that ever happened 
to you. You may relish the joy of a celebration   with friends, but maybe it's distracting you from 
pursuing something that would prevent more future

suffering. Therefore, K argued the only logical 
way to improve the world is through improving   ourselves. This is because the only thing we can 
truly experience with any certainty is ourselves. K defined self-improvement as developing 
the ability to adhere to the categorical   imperative, and he saw self-improvement as a duty, 
an undebatable obligation put on us all. To K, the   reward or punishment for not following one's 
duty was not in heaven or hell, but in a life   made for oneself. Adherence to morality produced 
not only a better life for yourself, but a better   life for all those around you. Similarly, failure 
to adhere to morality would produce unnecessary   suffering for oneself and for those around you. Con 
rule has a ripple effect: your improved ability to   be honest with yourself will increase how honest 
you are with others, and your honesty with others   will influence them to be more honest with 
themselves, which will then help them improve.

their lives. This is true for all aspects of K's 
rule, whether it's honesty, productivity, charity, or   consent. The Michael Jackson Maxum suggests that 
Kant's rule, once adopted by enough people, will   generate a snowball effect in the world, enacting 
more positive change than any calculated policy   or institution. The duty of self-respect, Kant 
intuitively understood that there is a fundamental   link between our respect for ourselves and our 
respect for the world. The way we interact with   our own psyche is the template which we apply to 
our interactions with others, and little progress   can be made with others until we've made progress 
with ourselves. He would likely be disgusted with   the self-esteem movement today, seeing it as just 
another way of treating people as a means to some   end of feeling better. Self-respect isn't about 
feeling better. Self-respect is about knowing   your own value, knowing that every human, no matter 
who they are, deserves basic rights and dignities.

that every Consciousness is sacred and must be 
treated as such. Kant would argue that telling   ourselves that we are worthless and shitty is 
just as wrong as telling others that they are   worthless and shitty. Lying to ourselves is just as 
unethical as lying to others. Harming ourselves is   just as repugnant as harming others. Self-love 
and self-care are therefore not something you   learn about or practice; they are something you are 
ethically called on to cultivate within yourself,   even if they are all you have left. The impact 
of Kant's philosophy, Khan's philosophy if you   dive into it, is riddled with inconsistencies 
and issues, but the power of His original ideas   is undoubtedly changed the world. And strangely 
when I came across them a year ago, they changed   me. I had spent most of my 20s pursuing many of 
the items on the list above, but I pursued them   for practical and transactional reasons. I pursued 
them as a means because I thought that they would

make my life better. Meanwhile, the more I worked at it, the emptier I felt. But reading Kant was an epiphany. And only 80 pages Kant swept away decades worth of assumptions and beliefs. He showed me that what you actually do doesn't matter as much as the purpose behind doing it. And until you find the right purpose, you haven't found much of anything at all. K wasn't always a humdrum roue obsessed dork. He wasn't always the mayor of Boreville. In fact, in Kant's younger years, he was a bit of a party hound as well. He would stay up late drinking wine and playing cards with his friends. He'd sleep late and eat too much and host big parties. It wasn't until he turned 40 that he dropped it all and developed the routine life he later made famous. He said that he developed this routine at 40 because he realized the moral implications of his actions and decided that he would no

longer allow himself to waste the precious time or 
energy. His Consciousness had left. Kant called this   developing character, AKA building a life designed 
around maximizing your own potential. He believed   most people can't develop true character until 
they reach middle age because until then, they   are still too seduced by the fancies and whims of 
the world, blown this way and that from excitement   to Despair and back again. We're too obsessed 
with accumulating more means and are hopelessly   oblivious to the ends that drive us. To develop 
character, a person must Master their own actions   and master themselves, and while few of us can 
accomplish that in a lifetime, Kant believed   it's something we each have a duty to work towards. 
In fact, he believed it was the only thing to work [Music] towards. What's up everybody, Mark 
Manson here, and what you just heard is an   excerpt from the number one New York Times 
bestseller, Everything is [__], a book about

Hope, be sure to check it out, and uh, check out my YouTube channel. It's um, you're on [Music] [Music] YouTube.

The ONE RULE for LIFE - Immanuel Kant's Moral Philosophy - Mark Manson

We cannot change the world. But we can change ourselves...and that will change the world. The goal of this channel is to empower the individual and deliver profound ideas through art.

Everyone is welcome to contribute. If you have a good idea for an animation please send them to Mark at AfterSkool100@gmail.com