KANT ISSUES- Not All Universalisable Maixms Are Moral Flashcards
What is an example of a trivial maxim that can be successfully universalised
I will chew food 32 times before eating, to aid digestion
What does Kant say about trivial acts
Those maxims that can be universalised are just morally permissible, we have no duty to do them.
It’s duties that cannot be universalised that create moral duties(to not perform them)
What does actions that cannot be universalised create moral duties lead to a criticism of Kant
It only tells us what we cannot do(lie etc) and doesn’t tell us what we should be aiming for. However it can be seen as a strength as it allows for people to pursue their own projects and ends
When we try to universalise maxims that relate to comparing ourselves to others it can become difficult. Give a maxim that proves this
WHEN TAKING AN EXAM, I WILL TRY TO COME IN THE TOP HALF
it is impossible to conceive this as we cannot all be in the top half. This would mean we would have a perfect duty to not be in the top half as the maxim cannot be universalised
What is a maxim that can be universalised relating to exams
WHEN TAKING AN EXAM, I WILL ALWAYS TRY TO GAIN OVER HALF THE MARKS, TO PUSH MYSELF
this can be universalised as everyone could get over half the marks.
Where does the problem lie with universalising norm-relating positions (comparing yourself to others)
Fixing the outcomes in relation to other people in ways that cannot be universalised. Maybe we shouldn’t compare ourselves to theirs as it uses the as a means to an end. However the maxim of being in the top 50% doesn’t seem to be immoral even if it cannot be universalised
What is a maxim that would feel morally wrong to not will but cannot be universalised
I WILL ALWAYS HELP PEOPLE IN POVERTY
If everyone did this there would be no poverty so cannot be a universal law
So would suggest we have a duty to not help poor people, but this would feel wrong.
Therefore this is a non-universalisable maxim that is not immoral to act on
What is a trivial duty that the categorical imperative generates
ON HALLOWEEN, I WILL GO AND COLLECT SWEETS, BUT WILL NOT PROVIDE ANY AT MY HOUSE TO SAVE MONEY
I can conceive a world where this rule but cannot rationally will it as it would destroy trick or treat which the maxim relies on.
So while I cannot universalise just collecting sweets it doesn’t seem to be a moral one but one ranting to cultural practise
What does the Halloween scenario suggest we have a duty to do
Hand out sweets if you are going to collect them
However this isn’t a moral duty So how do we distinguish between moral and non-moral duties as we cannot understand what morality is through the ability to universalise maxims
What is an example of an maxim that could be changed in order to make it universalisable that is immoral
Change the maxim TO STEAL which cannot be universalised as it creates a contradiction in conception TO STEAL FROM STORES WITH TEN LETTERS IN THEIR NAME
This can be universalised without undermining the idea of private property
This can therefore be universalised and proves that not all universalisable maxims are moral
What’s Kants reply to changing a maxim that is immoral to a univerlisable immoral maxim
You cannot add extra things to the maxim
The categorical imperative is focused on the actual maxim you are acting on not extra parts of your choice
