REFERING TO ABOVE EXAMPLES
let’s see if the maxims we found can be
universalized
Example: I’m bored, so I’ll call a friend
If the maxim is “phone a friend to ease my boredom,” we don’t seem to have a
problem: the universal version would be “everyone may phone a friend when bored.”
Example: If the maxim is “force someone to do something if it will make me
feel better”,
then the universalized version is “ everyone may force others to do
things if it will make the actor feel better” seems to be in conflict with itself: If my
friend doesn’t want to talk, then the universal rule says he can force me not to talk,
and I can force him to let me. I cant want both of those things at once, so my
intention- that I get my way, but he does not get his is not moral
In general, the categorical imperative seems to rule out the use of force, since force is
inherently partial: ie. In most cases someone who attacks another is intending to
gain an advantage for himself: an advantage this aggressor would not want to grant
to others. Such attempts at selfish advantage are just the kind of thing that cannot be
universalized
Example: The only way to get into this party is to lie, so ill lie
The universalized maxim seems in conflict with the particular one: I want to get my
way by lying, ie. To convince someone of something by saying untrue words. If
everyone behaved that way always, there would be no reason to believe any words
spoken, and so many words would not have the effect I want. I cant want to lie
successfully when convenient and for everyone to lie when convenient, so my action
is not according to duty
Example: I don’t want this patient to be an addict, so ill take away her
cigarettes
Even though my aim is to benefit the patient, according to Kant’s logic this one
seems to work out just like the use of force for selfish reasons. If my aim is to achieve
my goal by force, then I must intend others (including the patient) to achieve their
aims as well, although those aims conflict with mine; and so the maxim cannot be
consistently universalized.
iv.
Categorical Imperative II
The above example of categorical imperative is useful in practice.
I cannot want to impose my goals on others and want them to impose their
goals on me
so I cannot morally aim to impose my goals on others
This seems to be in connection between Kant’s first version of the categorical
imperative and his second…
Categorical Imperative II: Never treat a person as a mere means to an end
Remember there is only one categorical imperative; Kant’s claim is that it
can be stated in these 2 different ways
Many philosophers, are not convinced that the 2 are really equivalent
This version tells us that we
cannot use people
: we have to let them
decide for themselves what they will do
I can ask someone to do something for me (or for themselves), even give
reasons why they should
, but it is up to each person to choose
The term PERSON is important to Kant, and for ethical theory in general
o
For Kant, a person is
You've reached the end of your free preview.
Want to read all 33 pages?
