Gives four examples of the application of this test 1

gives four examples of the application of this test: (1) making a lying promise, (2) committing
suicide, (3) neglecting one’s talent, and (4) refraining from helping others. Counterexample 1:
Mandating Trivial Actions. Counterexample 2: Endorsing Cheating. Counterexample 3:
Prohibiting Permissible Actions. Counterexample 4: Mandating Genocide
The Principle of Ends
In valuing anything, I endow it with value; it can have no value apart from someone’s valuing it.
As a valued object, it has conditional worth, which is derived from my valuation. We, as valuers,
must conceive of ourselves as having unconditioned worth . We cannot think of our personhood
as a mere thing because then we would have to judge it to be without any value except that
given to it by the estimation of someone else. But then that person would be the source of
value, and there is no reason to suppose that one person should have unconditional worth and
not another who is relevantly similar. 1. Formulate the maxim (M). 2. Apply the ends test. (Does
the maxim involve violating the dignity of rational beings?) 3. Apply the principle of the law of
nature universalization test. (Can the maxim be universalized?)
Kant’s view of the dignity of rational beings. 3 problems: we should value clever people more,
we shouldn’t care about animals, it doesn’t tell us what to do in situations where our two or
more moral duties conflict.
The Principle of Autonomy
That is, we do not need an external authority—be it God, the state, our culture, or anyone else
—to determine the nature of the moral law. heteronomy: The heteronomous person is one
whose actions are motivated by the authority of others. 85 percent of the subjects were found
to be completely “obedient to authority.”
One of the problems that plague all formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative is that it yields
unqualified absolutes
Ross and Prima Facie Duties
There are three components of Ross ’s theory. The first of these is his notion of “moral intuition,”
internal perceptions that both discover the correct moral principles and apply them correctly.
The second component of his theory is that our intuitive duties constitute a plural set that
cannot be unified under a single overarching principle. As such, Ross echoes the intuitionism of

Pufendorf by presenting a list of several duties, specifically these seven: 1. Promise keeping 2.