If it can't be directed

[masterding]

Quote from a Harvard open course :
'But we still have to answer one more question, what gives an act its moral worth in the first place?If it can't be directed,that utility or satisfying wants and desires, what gives an action its moral worth? This leads us from Kant's demanding idea of freedom to his demanding idea of morality."

What does "directed" mean here?

Thanks.

 

[Raymott]

I've found:
"One key question we still need to answer is this: What gives an act its moral worth in the first place?
Kant answers that a morally worthy action has to do with the motive of the will with which the act is done."
https://www.karmanotes.org/note/harvard/justice/immaneul-kant-morality-and-freedom-13

Your quote isn't grammatical. Can you post the link?

 

[Matthew Wai]

Not a teacher. See below.
http://www.douban.com/group/topic/35607054/
We Chinese people always go to Chinese sites.

 

[Raymott]

That's terrible English. Maybe the page should have stuck to Chinese. It's unsalvageable. It looks like incompetent plagiarism.

 

[Polyester]

That's terrible English. Maybe the page should have stuck to Chinese. It's unsalvageable. It looks like incompetent plagiarism.

Ray,do you mean this site from Matthew provided is not grammatically correct?

 

[masterding]

I've found:
"One key question we still need to answer is this: What gives an act its moral worth in the first place?
Kant answers that a morally worthy action has to do with the motive of the will with which the act is done."
https://www.karmanotes.org/note/harvard/justice/immaneul-kant-morality-and-freedom-13

Your quote isn't grammatical. Can you post the link?

Hi RAymott, Do you mean the sentence "If it can't be directed,that utility or satisfying wants and desires," is not grammatical? The quote is from the subtitle I downloaded, there may be some mistakes in it.,but I listened to the video again carefully, it seems to me that is exactly what the teacher was saying.

 

[Matthew Wai]

'If it can’t be directed at utility or satisfying wants and desires, what gives an action it’s moral worth?'── quoted from a Japanese site http://english-chiba-u.jp/youtube/contents/06.html

Not a teacher.

 

[masterding]

That's terrible English. Maybe the page should have stuck to Chinese. It's unsalvageable. It looks like incompetent plagiarism.

Hi Raymott, I assume tha this script was provided by some chinese people , because I did't find any similar script on any english website.It may be incompetent , but I don't think it's plagirarism.
By the way , I listened to the course once again , it sounded to me more like " If it can't be directed at utility or satisfying wants and desires," and now the sentence makes sense.
the original link of the course:

http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/02/episode-06/#watch
The time of the sentence is at about 00:13:09.

 

[Raymott]

Hi Raymott, I assume tha this script was provided by some chinese people , because I did't find any similar script on any english website.

Then you didn't look at the link I gave in #2.
If the Chinese page attributes the original, then it might not be plagiarism. I can't read Chinese, so I don't know. I said it looks like it.

 

[Matthew Wai]

If the Chinese page attributes the original, then it might not be plagiarism.

Atop the Chinese page shown in my post#3, it says '哈佛公开课', which means 'Harvard open courses '. Does it count as attribution?

Not a teacher.

 

[lotus888]

http://www.douban.com/group/topic/35607054/

So, that [is] Kant's idea of freedom as autonomy and you can begin to see how it's connected to his idea of morality. But we still have to answer one question, what gives an act its moral worth in the first place?

If it can't be directed, [that utility or satisfying wants and desires], what gives an action it's moral worth?
This leads us from Kant's demanding idea [of] freedom to his demanding idea of morality.

[that utility or satisfying wants and desires] refers to"it". "It" is the act of utility or satisfying one's wants and desires.




--lotus

 

[masterding]

In my opinion , according to the context 'it' refers back to 'act' not [that utility or satisfying wants and desires].

 

[Matthew Wai]

lotus888 meant 'the act of utility or satisfying one's wants and desires', not [that utility or satisfying wants and desires].

Not a teacher.

 

[masterding]

lotus888 meant 'the act of utility or satisfying one's wants and desires', not [that utility or satisfying wants and desires].

Not a teacher.

Actually that's what I thought it was in the first place , and that's why I puzzled over what "directed" means, because that will make "directed" meaningless here.
My understanding of the sentence is if means (action) can't be directed at the end (utility or satisfying wants and desires),what gives an action its moral worth? this is people's doubt about Kant's idea of freedoms, because according to Kant's philosophy ,to act freely, is not to choose the best means to a given end, it's to choose the end itself.
So in my opinion "directed at" makes sense.