Republic of the Philippines

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

OPEN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
Bachelor of Public Administration

ETHICS

Submitted by:
Mendoza, Marilyn M.
BPAOUMN 1 - 1

Submitted to:
Prof. Joey S. Pinalas
MODULE 7
ACTIVITY:

1. Explain Kant’s ethics of universality.

ANSWER:

Bounded by the same moral laws that leads to acting on the universal law. Kant’s
universal as the foundation fot morality is logically described as the universalizability
principle would eliminate petty theft, in which society acknowledges as morally wrong.
In which, one should act only following that maxim by way of which you can be
permitted to at the same time will that it become a universal law. Kant’s ethics of
university is about our moral judgements, and we act following commands regardless
of our desires. That our actions require guided by universal moral laws, no one can
regard himself as remarkable from a moral point of view. In other terms, is that if you
do an action, then everyone else should also do it. According to Kant also, willing
universalized maxims may give rise to contradictions in two ways, such as, some steps
are of such a nature that their maxim cannot even thought of as a universal law of
nature nevertheless, without contradiction. Also, far from it being possible that one
could that is should be such. In others, this internal impossibility is not found. However,
it is still impossible to will that their maxim should be raised to the universality of a law
of nature, seeing that such a will could contradict itself. We quickly see that the former
maxim conflicts with the stricter or norrower duty, the latter with boarder commitment.
Kant’s ethics are organized around the notion of a “categorical imperative,” which is a
universal ethical principle stating that one should always respect the humanity in
others, and that one should only act in accordance with rules that could hold for
everyone. Kant argued that the moral law is a truth of reason, and hence that all rational
creatures are bound by the same moral law.

In theory, the universalizability principle sounds like a good idea. But what will happen
if someone wanted to violate a moral law for a good cause? Imagine a world where
every action was generalizable, every action can be replicated by everyone. For
example, if one person stole an item and got away with it, then everyone could steal
items in the same way without repercussions. Follow this train of logic to its end, and
you would have a world with constant theft and some serious trust issues. In this case
example, Kant’s universal law as the basis for morality is logically sound, the
universalizability principle would eliminate petty theft, which society acknowledges as
morally wrong. And now, imagine being under a univesalizability principle where no
one could lie. At first, it sounds pretty great. Salesperson would have to upfront about
their products, even if they were second-rate, and people couldn’t lie abour crimes they
committed. But what about white lies? For example, you could not surprise a friend
with a party, instead, you would have to be upfront and tell the truth, ruining the
surprise. Another example was you knew a friend was keeping a new relationship
secret from a disgruntled ex-boyfriend. The ex-boyfriend confronts you and asks if your
friends started dating someone new. You know that if yout tell him the truth, the ex-
boyfriend may seek sabotage and ruin your friend’s new relationship. Kant would argue
that under the universalizability principle, you cannot lie to your friend’s ex, as this
action is inherently self-servin and thus not generalizable. Instead, Kant would suggest
two options, refuse to answer the question or tell the truth. Under Kantian law, you
would not be responsible if the ex-boyfriend sought to ruin your friend’s relationship,
because the ex was acting outside of the universalizability principle which is seeking
to sabotage. This provides evidence for how Kantian logic falls outside of social norms.
However, this example lends itself well to a discussion of research regulations
regarding deception.
 In conclusion, the first sort of contradiction is usually called a contradiction in
conception, and the second a contradiction in the will. Furthermore, in the principle of
universality, if you expect someone to be kind, you should also possess that in the first
place. Honestly, we are bound not to do something all on for our benefit.

2. Discuss thoroughly how Kant arrived at formulating the categorical

imperative. Why is it necessary to establish ethical theory in the way Kant
formulated it?

ANSWER:

For Kant you must act according to the maxim to result in other reasonable people
following your path as if it were a universal law. Kant devises categorical imperative to
provide a formulation by which we can apply our human reason to determine the
proper, rational thing to do, and that is out duty. Without hypocrisy, act so that your
action established the precedent for all subsequent actions. All the times, at all places,
with all people. Arriving at the Categorical Imperative does not mean imposing
commands, but for us to have the opportunity to evaluate is equal to working so that
we would want everyone else to act in similar circumstances towards all other people.
Moreover, it is necessary to establish ethical theory in Kant’s way because he began
his began his ethical theory by contending that the only virtue that can be unqualifiedly
good is goodwill. Thus, no other virtue has this status because every other virtue can
be used to achieve immoral ends. He emphasized that goodwill is unique, therefore, it
is always good and can maintain moral value even when it fails to achieve its honorable
intentions. Besides, Kant regarded goodwill as a single moral principle that freely
chooses to use the other virtues for moral ends.

The golden rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat others the
same way you want to be treated yourself. This principle, which plays a prominent role
in many philosophies and religions, predates Kant’s work substantially and is also
similar to the categorical imperative, so a common criticism of the categorical
imperative is that it is the same thing as the golden rule. However, while the golden
rule and the categorical imperative are similar, these two moral principles are different
from one another, since the golden rule states that you should treat others the way you
want to be treated yourself, whereas the categorical imperative states that you
should act the way you want everyone else to act. As such, these two principles can
lead to different outcomes. For example, the categorical imperative could direct you to
avoid throwing trash in the street if you don’t want others to do the same, while the
golden rule wouldn’t play any role in this situation, since your behavior isn’t directed at
another person.

When it comes to understanding the categorical imperative, it is useful to understand

the difference between hypothetical and categorical imperatives, based on Kant’s
work. According to him, a hypothetical imperative is a moral law that depends on some
end goal or condition. An example of a hypotheticl imperative is, “do not rude, if you
do not want others to be rude to you”. While the categorical imperative is a moral law
that is absolute and unconditional, meaning that it does not depend on a particular end
goal. An example of a categorical imperative is “do not be rude”. As such the difference
between hypothetical and categorical imperatives is that a hypothetical imperative
depends on some condition, whereas a categorical imperative does not. This means
that hypothetical imperatives should only be obeyed if you wish to achieve some
specific goal, whereas categorical imperatives should always be obeyed, regardless
of your goals. For example, “do not steal if you want to stay out of jail” is a hypothetical
imperative, while “do not steal” is a categorical imperative.

The categorical imperative is a moral principle which denotes that you should
act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time
will that it become a universal law, meaning that you should act a certain way
only if you’re willing to have everyone else act the same way too. An example
of this is that you should not make a promise that you intend to breal later,
unless you’re willing to have everyone else do the same. To implement the
categorical imperative, ask yourself “would I be willing to have everyone else
act the same way?” before a certain way, and then base your actions based on
the answer to that. I believe that the categorical imperative must establish
morality since you cannot refuse to do it so. It is not concernced with the
outcome of the action but with its form and motive. Thus, it is the source of all
the imperatives of duty and may also be expressed. Lastly, it is a form of the
imperative for the moral law. It is intuitive, immediate, absolute, commands that
all rational creatures can understand through their reason. This is what we do
whether we like it or not.