Whether non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral Flashcards
What is the secularized version of the golden rule?
Strength: universalizability is a philosophical encapsulation of a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.
The secularized version of the golden rule is universalizability, which entails treating others as you would like to be treated and is found in various ethical traditions.
What is universalizability?
Strength: universalizability is a philosophical encapsulation of a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.
Universalizability is a principle that suggests actions should be considered moral if they can be consistently applied to everyone without contradiction.
How is universalizability similar to the golden rule?
Strength: universalizability is a philosophical encapsulation of a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.
Universalizability and the golden rule both emphasize the importance of treating others with the same respect and consideration that one would desire for themselves.
How do teachers often apply ethical precepts like universalizability in their interactions with students?
Strength: universalizability is a philosophical encapsulation of a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.
Teachers often use ethical precepts like universalizability when disciplining misbehaving students, asking them to consider how they would feel if they were treated the same way they had treated others.
What critique of Kant’s universalizability does Alasdair McIntyre present?
Weakness: Not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral
McIntyre argues that Kant’s test of universalizability can justify immoral or trivial non-moral maxims, such as “Always eat mussels on Mondays in March” or “Keep all your promises throughout your entire life except one.”
What example does McIntyre provide to illustrate the limitation of Kant’s test?
Weakness: Not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral
McIntyre suggests that someone could justify stealing by universalizing the maxim “It’s acceptable for people born on February 29th to steal,” as it wouldn’t undermine the concept of property if only a minority of people stole.
What issue does McIntyre raise regarding non-universalizable maxims?
Weakness: Not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral
McIntyre points out that some morally neutral actions, like a rich person giving lots of money to charity, cannot be done by everyone but do not seem distinctly immoral.
What is McIntyre’s criticism of Kant’s first formulation?
Weakness: Not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral/moral
McIntyre suggests that Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative is overly abstract and fails to account for the complexities of real-world moral dilemmas.
How does Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative address criticisms of the first formulation?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant’s second formulation requires that maxims involving the treatment of persons, including ourselves, must respect their dignity as ends in themselves, protecting his theory from criticisms of allowing trivial or immoral maxims.
What distinguishes maxims that pass Kant’s second formulation from those that do not?
Evaluation defending Kant
Maxims that treat people as ends involve clear moral content and are considered duties, while those that do not involve such treatment are considered non-moral or trivial.
Give an example of a maxim that fails Kant’s second formulation.
Evaluation defending Kant
Breaking promises treats others as a mere means, violating Kant’s requirement to treat people as ends, and therefore fails the second formulation of the categorical imperative.
How does Kant’s second formulation ensure that his theory excludes trivial or immoral maxims?
Evaluation defending Kant
Kant’s second formulation requires that maxims involving the treatment of persons must respect their dignity as ends in themselves, ensuring that only maxims with clear moral content are considered duties.
