The Universal Law Formula of the Categorical Imperative Essay

Under the Formula of Universal Law no maxim is permissible if there exists in that maxim’s conception or universal application any contradiction; one of the most apparently relevant actions to consider under this formulation is lying. If in cases when I wanted others to believe something contrary to what I believe to be true I chose to lie, I would soon find that others would discredit all that I say. Further If everyone where to lie when it is to their advantage, no one would believe anyone else when they spoke. For these reasons under the Formula of Universal Law lying is not permissible, at any time, in any case. But it intuitively seems that there are times in which lying is permissible.

SPJ is the ethics code that most relates to this cases. The reporter who is writing the story top priority is to seek the truth and report it. A story involving a political figure has to be taken seriously. He/she has to be fair to both parties involved. Even though Senator Adams did not give a comment to the story, a good journalist who wants to report the truth is not afraid to get a comment from a person in Adams office. If no one is available for comment the journalist should publish what he or she have and then continue to update the story. As the journalist they should keep developing the story and to minimize harm. The story is involving one man who is accused of sexual harassment against eight women. Compassion needs to be shown towards the women who have come forward. It takes a lot to stand up to someone such as Senator Adams. The journalist should not name Brock Adams until authorities have charged him. He has rights as well. The main point is to treat both parties with respect and give a voice to the voiceless.

The first formulation of the categorical imperative is “act only in a way the maxim of which can be consistently willed as a universal law of nature.” This formulation in principle has as its supreme law, “always act according to that maxim whose universality as a law you can at the same time will” and is the only condition under which a will can ever

example is of a man who is suffering from many misfortunes in life and wishes to

In the reading of “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals,” Kant mentions our actions being done out of duty or of desire. In which we have our maxims are a fraction of our actions and it turns into a universal law. In this essay, I shall explain what Kant means by “I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law”(Prompt). Also, how it corresponds to the first proposition, that Kant states, which is an action must be from moral duty. I will provide an example of this proposition taking place.

Kant’s philosophy was based around the theory that we have a moral unconditional obligation and duty that he calls the “Categorical Imperative.” He believes that an action must be done with a motive of this moral obligation, and if not done with this intention then the action would hold no moral value. Under this umbrella of the “Categorical Imperative” he presents three formulations that he believes to be about equal in importance, relevance, and could be tested towards any case. The first formulation known as the Formula of Universal Law consists of a methodical way to find out morality of actions. The second formulation is known as

First, he states that it is okay to lie so you can save yourself from embarrassment.(516) Secondly he claims that consistently telling the truth has it’s advantage in trust.(516) To this he says there are exceptions to this rule. Namely that if withholding information from someone results in saving them from evil occurring to them.(516) Even with these exceptions, he says that we have to recognize that the lie may be breaking down trust so we can truly weight the cost and the benefit of both.(516)

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

This formula is derived from the Universal Law of the categorical imperative. This formula leads to imperfect duty.

Deceptions have always been part of human nature. They are not only considered acceptable in certain situations but are essential when the aim is to achieve good and avoid harm. On the other hand, deceptions are morally wrong when it is intentionally conspired against individuals who have a moral right to know the truth. It would be simple-minded and naïve of us to ignore the fact that people sometimes deceive us. The truth is that we cannot really know what is going on in the mind and heart of others. We have no choice but to judge them by their appearance and to trust them in what they tell us. At this point, we are all potential prey to manipulators; for an individual who seems to be good and righteous may actually be evil and vice versa.

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.

Human cultures do tend to agree about some moral ideas, such as murder of one's own people, cruelty (except against enemies), rape, and other violent actions which force one person's will upon another. The fact that there is agreement seems to indicate a common source of moral conscience, a standard to which all humans attempt to adhere. C.S. Lewis called this idea the "Moral Law" or a natural law of morality [1], an idea similar to Immanuel Kant's "Law of Nature" idea. Kant grounds his concept in an a priori purely practical human reason, which Lewis identifies in the imago Dei within human nature. Kant's categorical imperative insists that morality is based on valid impersonal principles, in the intrinsic worth of right itself, upon

It states that “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time [rationally] will that it become a universal law” (Bergeron and Tramel 239). In this definition, the maxim is the objective principle. People need to act in accordance to the objective maxim, and the maxim has become the universal law through the judgments of will. The key point of this formulation is whether the maxim is universalizable or not. If the maxim is universalizable, it is the objective principle. People need to act and obey this objective maxim in moral life. Otherwise, the maxim is only the subjective principle, and people should not apply their subjective maxims into the moral life. People will betray the universal law only by means of their subjective maxims, and this behavior is not allowed in Categorical Imperative. The formulation of universal law is the basis of Categorical Imperative.

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