Essay about Categorical Imperative

Basic principle:One action is moral only if when we expand it as a moral rule,and every one follow it,it will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness,(its universal adoption will cause the greatest happiness),it also foncus on the consequences of the action just as other Utilitarianism.

2a. The universalizability version of the Categorical Imperative states to act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. It generalizes the rule to decide if an act is morally permissible. A maxim is a personal rule to guide one’s behavior. For example, a maxim can be to run three miles every day. If everyone can do the maxim, then it could become a universal law. On the other hand, if not everyone can do the maxim, then the act is impermissible, and should not be followed. The maxim of running three miles a day is impermissible, because many people cannot run three miles a day for all several reasons.

In Kant’s book, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant talks about the three formulations of the categorical imperative. By these formulations, he describes his idea of organizing the moral principle for all rational beings. Kant also talks about the principles of humanity, rational ends, and the “realm of ends” which are constituted by the autonomous freedom of rational beings.

The formula that I chose of Kant’s was the first formula of Universal Law, because if I politely asked them to start recycling and they

First, there are some important terms that must be identified. A maxim is a short statement expressing a general rule of conduct. Next, a universal law is an action or conduct that is universally accepted as correct. The Kantian perspective combines both of these terms into its Formula of Universal Law, which states a person should act according to a maxim only when it would be ok becoming a universal law. Another term that must be defined is the adjusted social world, which is the hypothetical society after the new law becomes a law of

Davis, C. W., Sr. (2017). “Ethics and Universal Truths.” ethics is, “a set of principles which apply to all humans” (“Universal Ethics,” 2017). Universal ethics consist of four things it is, universal, comprehensive, logical, and non-random. A Universal Ethic is free of personal, and cultural views. Universal ethics are nonspecific and apply to everyone. Many universal ethics are self-evident, but others are more complicated. When talking about universal ethics, the question of existence constantly rises. What is humankind? Why does it exist? What is it here to do? Universal ethics cannot answer these questions, but rather provide us with a “Moral Constitution” for life, that of which is accepted by all human beings (“Universal Ethics,” 2017).

The universal law formula of the categorical imperative ("the CI") is an unconditional moral law stating that one should “act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” A maxim is the motivating principle or reason for one’s actions. A moral act is an act by which its maxim can become universal law that would apply to all rational creatures. As a universal law, all rational creatures must act according to this maxim. The CI requires one to imagine a world where the maxim one wishes to act by becomes a universal law, in which all people must act according to this maxim. If one wills this maxim to become universal law that all rational creatures must follow, but there is a

Therefore, doing the right thing is not driven by the pursuit of individual desires or interests, but by the need to follow a maxim that is acceptable to all rational individuals. Kant calls this the categorical imperative, and he described it thus, “act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 2008). This basic condition through which the moral principles guiding the relations between human beings is expected of all rational individuals, and determines how they express their moral autonomy and equality. All rational individuals who are morally autonomous willingly comply with the categorical imperative. They then use it to determine the form and scope of the laws which they will institute in order to safeguard these important conditions that form the basis of human rights (Denise, Peterfreund & White, 1999). According to Kant, human beings have the capacity to exercise reason, and this is what forms the basis for protecting human dignity. This exercise of reason must meet the standards of universality, in that the laws formulated must be capable of being accepted universally by all equally rational individuals (Doyle, 1983). Various accounts documenting the historical development of human rights overlook Kant’s moral philosophy, but it is very clear that, through the categorical imperative, he provides the ideals of moral autonomy and equality

Universalism demands every human being to have basic rights and there are three pillars of universalism. These human rights theories have originated from multiple different theorists. Natural law is one of the three pillars of universalism that will be discussed in the course of this essay. Thomas Aquinas was a philosopher who expanded on the philosophy of natural law. He believed in the concept of religion and morality, and presumed that natural law was derived because of the commandments of God. Furthermore, the objective of this essay will be to explain natural law and why I disagree with the theory.

Kant’s categorical imperative states that a person should “always act so that you can will that your maxim can become universal law.” This means that a person should strive to have what he or she believes to be right as what is to be considered right in the rest of the universe, following the idea that

Important to realize is universal laws or moral rules are a necessary part of society. Without rules, society would not function properly, and a breakdown of humanity’s social structure would soon follow. If no one kept their word, then no one would be believed or trusted. Hence, nothing would ever be accomplished. It would stand to reason people must keep their commitments. Kant’s categorical imperative is defined by reason and binding for all rational people. (Rachels EMP 135) Kant maintains that “act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that is should become a universal law.” (qtd in Rachels EMP 130) To clarify, if one’s actions can be based on a rule or maxim that can be followed without exception by everyone,

Universal ethics, defined by Immanuel Kant, is an ethical theory that applies to rational beings. An act is morally right when the will is perfectly aligned with duty. That is, an action has to be motivated by duty to have moral worth. The responsibilities of duty are universal; they are instilled in all rational beings and apply to all people, in all possible situations. To understand Kantian ethics, we have to understand its formulation, the categorical imperative. The imperative is an order that follows from the command of reason that tells a rational beings what they must do. It cannot be opposed, refused, or modified. In this sense, the categorical imperative is different from hypothetical imperative, which is the if-then structure.

To be subjective, this falls under the categorical imperative, which is how a maxim is tested. It emphasizes how the governing of rational beings within duty is on a universal level, in which exceptions cannot be made on an individual basis. However, there is a distinct difference between this Kantian theory and rule utilitarianism. The first provides a basis for judging moral value within the boundaries of duty, and the latter states “we ought to act according to a set of rules that would lead to optimal consequences…if accepted by majority of people in

In contrast, the third formulation requires the universalization of the maxim to be capable of being consented to by all rational being to which it applies. The first formulation thus sets a much lower bar, as an outcome can avoid logical absurdity while still flagrantly violating human autonomy. On the other hand, the third formulation would not permit any law that could not have been internally willed by everybody, and given the uniqueness and wide-ranging differences between humans, this requirement would be extremely difficult to satisfy. Further, the second formulation – the Humanity principle – does not appear to contain any explicit requirement that a maxim be universalized, so long as the using of humans without their consent is not sanctioned. As such, the Humanity principle would not be concerned that a principle that does not affect human autonomy or consent nonetheless results in a logical absurdity or otherwise unpalatable result when universalized.

The categorical imperative suggests that a course of action must be followed because of its rightness and necessity. The course of action taken can also be reasoned by its ability to be seen as a universal law. Universal laws have been deemed as unconditional commands that are binding to everyone at all times. Kant