Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Week 11

    Uploaded by

    Evander Sasarita Montero
    This document provides an overview of Kant's categorical imperative and the concept of universalizability in moral philosophy. It explains that the categorical imperative is a formal, rather than substantive, moral theory that provides a process - universalizability testing - to determine whether actions are morally permissible rather than dictating specific actions. Through applying the universalizability test of imagining whether the maxim or rule behind an action can be universally willed without contradiction, one can use reason to determine moral duties and legislate morality autonomously rather than rely on external authorities. The document uses examples like borrowing money without intent to repay to demonstrate how the test reveals logical inconsistencies that prohibit certain actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Week 11

    Uploaded by

    Evander Sasarita Montero
    21 views4 pages
    This document provides an overview of Kant's categorical imperative and the concept of universalizability in moral philosophy. It explains that the categorical imperative is a formal, rather than substantive, moral theory that provides a process - universalizability testing - to determine whether actions are morally permissible rather than dictating specific actions. Through applying the universalizability test of imagining whether the maxim or rule behind an action can be universally willed without contradiction, one can use reason to determine moral duties and legislate morality autonomously rather than rely on external authorities. The document uses examples like borrowing money without intent to repay to demonstrate how the test reveals logical inconsistencies that prohibit certain actions.

    Original Description:

    Investigation CDI3 investigation techniques

    Original Title

    Week-11

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document provides an overview of Kant's categorical imperative and the concept of universalizability in moral philosophy. It explains that the categorical imperative is a formal, rather than substantive, moral theory that provides a process - universalizability testing - to determine whether actions are morally permissible rather than dictating specific actions. Through applying the universalizability test of imagining whether the maxim or rule behind an action can be universally willed without contradiction, one can use reason to determine moral duties and legislate morality autonomously rather than rely on external authorities. The document uses examples like borrowing money without intent to repay to demonstrate how the test reveals logical inconsistencies that prohibit certain actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    21 views4 pages

    Week 11

    Uploaded by

    Evander Sasarita Montero
    This document provides an overview of Kant's categorical imperative and the concept of universalizability in moral philosophy. It explains that the categorical imperative is a formal, rather than substantive, moral theory that provides a process - universalizability testing - to determine whether actions are morally permissible rather than dictating specific actions. Through applying the universalizability test of imagining whether the maxim or rule behind an action can be universally willed without contradiction, one can use reason to determine moral duties and legislate morality autonomously rather than rely on external authorities. The document uses examples like borrowing money without intent to repay to demonstrate how the test reveals logical inconsistencies that prohibit certain actions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 4

    DAVAO CENTRAL COLLEGE, INC.

    Juan dela Cruz Street, Toril, Davao City


    Landline No. (082) 291 1882

    Accredited by ACSCU-ACI
    GE ETH1

    Week 11: Universalizability

    Learning Outcomes:
    1. Students will be able to evaluate actions using the
    universalizability test;
    2. Understand Kant’s moral philosophy.

    Concept Digest

    UNIVERSALIZABILITY

    To figure out how the faculty of reason can be use of an


    autonomous action, we need to learn a method or a specific
    procedure that will demonstrate autonomy of the will. But
    first, we need to make a distinction about kinds of moral
    theories namely, substantive and formal moral theories.

    Substantive moral theory immediately promulgates the specific


    actions that comprise that theory. It identifies the particular
    duties in straightforward manner that the adherents or
    followers of the theory must follow. The specific laws are
    articulated mostly in the form of a straightforward moral
    command: example, the set of Ten Commandments “Honor your
    father and mother”, “You shall not kill” and so forth.

    Formal moral theory does not supply the rules or commands


    straightaway. It does not tell you what you may or may not do.
    Instead, it will give us a set of instructions on how to make a
    list of duties or moral commands.

    Kant endorses the formal moral theory. The Grundlegung zur


    Metaphysik der Sitten (1785), embodies a formal moral theory in
    what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides a
    procedural way of identifying the rightness or wrongness of an
    action. Kant articulates the categorical imperative this way:

    Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that hit become
    a universal law.

    The four key elements in the formulation of categorical


    imperative: action, maxim, will and universal law.

    Kant states that we must formulate an action as a maxim, which


    he defines as a “subjective principle of action”. In this
    context, a maxim consists of a “rule” that we live by in our
    day-to-day lives, but it does not have the status of a law or a
    moral command that binds us to act in a certain way. Rather,
    maxims depict the patterns of our behavior.

    Page 1 of 4
    DAVAO CENTRAL COLLEGE, INC.
    Juan dela Cruz Street, Toril, Davao City
    Landline No. (082) 291 1882

    Accredited by ACSCU-ACI
    Kant pointed out that we should act according to a maxim by
    which we can at once will that it become a universal law. But
    what does it mean to will a maxim that can become a universal
    law? It means that the maxim must be universalizable. In this
    formulation, Kant, is telling us to conceive of the maxim as if
    it obligated everyone to comply. This mental act of imagining a
    universalized maxim leads us to imagine a maxim as a law that
    everyone ought to follow.

    In Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes up


    the issue of making false promises. Consider a man who needs a
    money but has no immediate access to obtain it except borrowing
    from a friend. This man knows that he cannot pay it back yet he
    still borrows the money. This is a specific act under the
    general category of acts called false promising.

    What does it mean to universalize the maxim of borrowing money


    without intending to return it? It is simple. The maxim can
    either make sense or not make sense as a universal law. By
    “making sense”, we refer to the logical plausibility
    (reasonable) of the universalized maxim. The opposite of
    logical plausibility is self-contradiction or logical
    impossibility.

    Let us assess the hypothetical world of borrowing money without


    the intention to return it. If this is the case, then, all
    lenders would know that they will not be paid and they will
    refuse to lend money. The institution of money-borrowing would
    lose its meaning of everyone borrow money without intending to
    pay it bask. As as universalized maxim, it would self-destruct
    because it becomes impossible. This is how Kant assesses it:

    Here I see straightaway that it could never be valid as a universal law of nature and
    be consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality
    of a law that each person, when he believes himself to be in need, could promise
    whatever he pleases with the intent not to keep it, would make the promise and the
    purpose that he may have impossible, since no one would believe what was
    promised him but would laugh at such expressions as futile pretense.

    In the passage above, Kant distinguishes between being


    “consistent with itself” and “contradict itself”. Looking at
    the maxim again: “When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it
    even when I know I cannot pay it back”. The contradiction is
    evident: to borrow (implies returning) but the intention is not
    to return. It makes no sense. This is why Kant claims that the
    universalized maxim “could never be valid as a universal law of
    nature and be consistent with itself, but must necessarily
    contradict itself”. Therefore, the act of borrowing money
    without intending to pay is irrationally impermissible. Here,
    we discover two ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The
    universalized maxim becomes either (1) self-contradictory or
    (2) the act and its purpose become impossible.

    Page 2 of 4
    DAVAO CENTRAL COLLEGE, INC.
    Juan dela Cruz Street, Toril, Davao City
    Landline No. (082) 291 1882

    Accredited by ACSCU-ACI

    What is the result of all these? We reveal the rational


    permissibility of actions insofar as they cannot be rejected as
    universalizable maxims. In contrast, those universalized maxims
    that are rejected are shown impermissible, that is, they are
    irrational and thus, in Kant’s mind, immoral. But what does
    rational permissibility mean? Simply put, it refers to the
    intrinsic quality of action that is objectively and necessarily
    rational. Therefore, we have demonstrated that borrowing money
    without intending to pay, as kind of false promise, is
    objectively and necessarily wrong, insofar as it encounters a
    self-contradiction and logical impossibility when it is
    universalized as maxim.

    SUMMARY

    Kant’s categorical imperative is formal, not substantive,


    moral philosophy. We have shown how an action is permissible or
    not. Instead of given list of substantive moral commands, we
    now have a sort of tool, like a measuring instrument, that
    tells us whether an action is morally permissible or not.
    Hence, we have the capacity to make our own list of moral
    commands. Instead of receiving them from other, we use our
    rational faulty to produce our own list of moral duties.

    Returning to Reggie and the suitcase that was left in his


    cab, he can now test on his own moral permissibility of the
    formulated maxim: “When a suitcase that does not belong to me
    is left in my can, I shall take its contents and sell the for
    my own benefit”. Does the universalized maxim encounter a self-
    contradiction, or does it remain self-consistent? The
    universalized maxim of Reggie becomes contradictory, for the
    meaning of ownership is contradicted. How is it that everyone
    is obligated to take a suitcase and sell its contents, despite
    the fact that they do not have the rights to possess, use, and
    dispose of that suitcase?
    Now, imagine applying this procedure to other scenarios in
    which a person encounters moral problems, such as lying,
    cheating in exam, murder and adultery, among others. Can the
    maxims in the specific actions under those moral issues be
    universalized without encountering self-contradiction?

    In summary, this procedure is properly used when one


    wishes to determine the moral permissibility of an action.
    Indeed, we are often already told which actions are right or
    wrong, but this knowledge is usually based on what authority
    figure say like our parents, priests, school rules and
    regulations, and government ordinances already prescribe
    clearly determined moral commands. So what is the categorical
    imperative for? If we already know whether or not an action is
    right?

    Page 3 of 4
    DAVAO CENTRAL COLLEGE, INC.
    Juan dela Cruz Street, Toril, Davao City
    Landline No. (082) 291 1882

    Accredited by ACSCU-ACI
    The categorical imperative is precisely for the rational
    will that is autonomous. Recall that autonomy implies a self-
    legislating will. The test for universalizability makes
    possible for self-legislation, for the result of the
    categorical imperative, is nothing other than the capacity to
    distinguish between permissible and impermissible moral acts.
    Any rational will can then begin the work of producing a list
    of duties, what a rational and autonomous will believes to be
    right and wrong actions.

    In conclusion, what can deontology contribute to our


    lives, specifically to our moral reflection? The answer lies in
    one concept: enlightenment morality. This kind of morality is
    opposed to paternalism, which evokes the metaphor of father. In
    this metaphor, the father makes decisions on behalf of and in
    the interest of the children, as long as the children are
    dependent and may nit know yet what is best for them. The
    children are expected to comply and obey because they are still
    unfit to make good decisions on their own. But what happens
    when children grow and become mature adults? When they move on
    to develop their minds and live their own lives? Certainly,
    paternalism has to give way to a more mature and rational will
    when the children are no longer children, when they mature, and
    can begin to navigate the complex world.

    This is therefore, the place of deontology in the spirit


    of enlightenment morality. Deontology is based on the “light”
    of one’s own reason when maturity and rational capacity take
    hold of a person’s decision-making. With deontology,
    particularly the method of universalizability, we can validate
    and adopt those rules and laws that are right and reject those
    that are irrational, thus impermissible because they are self-
    contradictory. This is the practical value of deontology in our
    moral reflection: we are encouraged to have courage to think on
    our own, to use our rational will against external authorities
    as well as internal base impulses that tend to undermine our
    autonomy and self-determination.

    Page 4 of 4

    You might also like