Universal Law Argument

For instance, if a person were to ask me if his car was nice but I thought it was junk, Kant would disregard his feelings because telling him the truth is more important. Therefore, it is okay to perform illegal or unethical actions because morality and loyalty are more important. The problem would then arise: “What if everyone did this? What if everyone acted on impulse and did whatever they wanted? There would be no need for moral choices and

One of Kant’s more controversial cases in which he stuck to the idea that lying would be wrong is that of the murderer at the door. If some murderer set on killing your roommate were to come to your door and ask

Common sense seems to dictate that truths are always better than lies. In his lecture “A Lesson in Lying,” Michael Sandel discusses the categorical duty to tell the truth. He illustrates German philosopher, Immanuel Kant’s rigorous theory of morality, which allowed for no exceptions. “Kant believed that telling a lie, even a white lie, was a violation of one's own dignity.” Sandel experiments Kant's theory with his vigorous hypothetical scenario, The Killer at Your Door: “If your friend were hiding inside your home and a person intent on killing him came to your door and asked you where he was, would it be wrong to tell a lie?”

Kant would disagree with those who do the right thing for the wrong reason. We, as a society and individuals in that society, should act in ways not because it’s easy for us or more favourable, but because its right and moral.

Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, specifically a deontologist, has two imperatives: the hypothetical imperative and the categorical imperative. These imperatives describe what we ought to do and are only applicable to rational beings because they are the only beings that recognize what they ought or ought not to do. The hypothetical imperative is when an individual’s actions are reasoned by their desire, so they only act with the intention of fulfilling their desires. The categorical imperative is what human beings ought to do for their own sake regardless of whatever else they might desire. The categorical imperative has two formulations. Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative states that one ought to only act on maxims that can be used as universal law. This formulation is based on its urgency and unity in the society. When a maxim cannot be determined a universal law, then it is morally impermissible to act upon it. Apply this formulation to the example of the lying promise: this cannot be willed as a universal law because trust will no longer be a part of society. If everyone were to make a lying promise to get money without retribution, then people will eventually recognize they are being deceived, which will result in a more selfish community. When one wills something as a universal law, then it is for the intention to better the state and community. This proves that the lying promise is not a maxim to live by.

7. Bluffing can be ethical, depending on the circumstances and how it is employed. In fact, Beatty Samuelson, in Essentials of Business Law, points out the “Kantian evasion or plater”, which serves as the basis for deceiving someone in an ethical way. She describes it as “a truthful statement that is nonetheless misleading” (36). For instance, Kant’s example of a murderer coming to our door -asking for someone who is in our own home and who he wants to kill – illustrates an instance when answering questions fully could lead to terrible consequences (36). In that case, Samuelson argues, telling the truth and pointing the killer to the victim would be very costly, so it is better to employ Kant’s evasion principle and reply with a truthful, but misleading statement.

Kant’s first proposition is an action has moral worth only if it is done out of duty, such as when someone who has absolutely no interest in donating to the poor does so out of duty. His second proposition is that action has moral worth not because of its aim, but because of the maxim on which it is based, meaning that it would not matter if the intent failed, as long as the principle was good. His third proposition is that duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law, such as if an individual is in an embarassing spot, they could will the lie, but not will the maxim to lie. Kant argues that everything is secretly done in self benefit, an example can be an individual helping another merely for the fulfilled feeling.

It is commendable that he never backed down from the belief that lying is never acceptable, even to prevent a murder. He defended himself by stating moral actions are not measured by their consequences and if a person lied to a murderer, he or she is now denying the murderer the freedom to rationalize his own actions and perhaps decide not to kill his intended victim. Kant feels that by lying to the murderer the murderer becomes just a means to an end instead of being treated like an end as well. He has essentially been stripped of free will in that situation which goes against everything Kant believes to be

Kant’s categorical imperative is a natural conclusion of reason when searching for a moral guideline that does not depend on previous expense but reason alone. The categorical imperative can be explained in many different ways. Kant offers five formulations in his work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. The formulations of Kant’s categorical imperative can be considered a test. If your maxim passes the test then your actions under that maxim will be good. The formulations that Kant offers, they are not different rules in themselves, but different ways of stating the same thing. It is important to note that these formulations apply only to your maxim, or what you intend to do. The categorical imperative is based off of the assumption

Humanity is exactly what the name entails, human. People are imperfect creatures who have the unique ability to contemplate their existence and feel emotion, which, more often than not, guides our actions. Our actions, right or wrong, have the potential to affect the lives around us. The complexity that surrounds right and wrong vary based on factors such as circumstance and ideology; thus, the need for ethics, a set of moral principles that are made to distinguish right and wrong behavior. For thousands of years, philosophers have theorized about the unmitigated ethics that could serve as an outline for people as they are constantly confronted with situations that deal with right and wrong. Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher, formulated ethical guidelines, or moral laws that all people should follow at all times. His moral laws exist under a paradigm called the Categorical Imperative, which is made up of two distinct laws known as the Formula of Universal law and the Formula of Humanity. According to the Formula of Universal Law, all people should act so that the maxim of their actions can be applied universally(citation). In addition to this, the Formula of Humanity suggests that people should be treated as ends rather than as a means(citation). In a perfect world, the Categorical Imperative would work; however, it is impractical. The categorical Imperative has a stark, black and white view of how people should act and does not account for exceptions. Considering we are

When I briefly studied Kant in college, it made me furious because Kant says lying is always unacceptable and impermissible. Which means this would happen:

Before Kant wrote this book, he observed fallacies in society such as thinking about the consequences of an action, rather than if the action itself is good. Other fallacies include that humans do not typically think about how a decision will impact their fellow humans. Kant noted these deficiencies in society and as a result hypothesized the universal categorical imperative stating one “ought never to act in such a way that [one] couldn’t also will that maxim on which [one] should be a universal law” (Kant 11). Kant offered this categorical imperative to answer most questions of morality simply by asking oneself, “Would I be content for my maxim…to hold as a universal law, for myself as well as for others” (Kant 12). The reason Kant’s universal imperative is foremost to other ethical theories is because if we were to conceptualize our decision on a grand scale using Kant’s universal imperative, we would un-biasedly conclude that either our decision would deteriorate society or that our decision would be of benefit to society. For example, in reference to the act of lying, Kant explains that a person “could will the lie but not a universal law to life; for such a law would result in there being no promises at all” (Kant 12). Similarly, if I promised a person to vouch for them and tell the truth at a court hearing and instead I recall the situation inaccurately for my own gain or for certain benefits, I am contributing to the injustice of the World. In contrast, if I were to get on the stand and ask myself “what would happen if no one got on the witness stand and told the accurate story,” I would have substantiated that a World with no truth is a World filled with criminals who do not receive justice. Kant’s universal categorical imperative is applicable to the vast majority of moral questions, making it the

The Formula of Universal Law states that human beings must act upon a maxim. A maxim is the reasons for people's actions. At the same time, the person adopting this maxim must be willing to admit this as a universal law that everyone must and will agree to act based on. In the Wells Fargo case, employees create fake accounts to meet sales goals because everyone else is doing the same thing and this seems like the only feasible solution to reach high quotas. They believe that they could utilize some unconventional ways, like creating fake accounts for bank employees at one the largest bank in United States, to achieve their goals. They fail to see how this decision's inability of become a maxim because this is clearly universal. In this scenario,

Universal theories state that, regardless of race, origin, religious beliefs or culture, every human being is entitled to basic rights. These rights are inherent to the fundamental nature of that person, and are meant to be implemented transnationally, without bias. The universal theory of legalism states that the “only way to create social harmony is through legal rule”, and that there cannot be an expectation on individuals to regulate themselves (Juric). The regulation of individuals is achieved through government. However, the government agents are also subject to the law. This notion is known as the Rule of Law and states that no individual is above the law. Legalism proposes “that the law is not arbitrary, they are rooted in reason and agreed upon by all of us” (Juric). Legalism makes the assertion that the only creditable government is democratic in nature. Through a majority vote democratic governments give the individuals of the society the ability to choose the legislative party that is responsible for creating the laws that the citizens abide by. In this way, legalism states that citizens have influence over the laws and policies of their country. In order for Legalism to be considered a valid universal human rights theory, it must be accepted by all nations. This paper discusses the notion that the universalist theory legalism is inoperative because of its Cultural limitations, and difficulty implementing Human rights Standards. There is a strong Western

In this paper, I will propose that it is better to look at whether a law is legally valid or not through the perspective of natural law theory as opposed to positivist theory. My argument consists mostly of the language of “improvement” which can only exist based on the theory of natural law which states that law is something which has an objective truth behind it. Only when there is an objective mark to hit can there be hits and misses and I believe that positivism disregards the possibility of hits and misses entirely. So, my argument is that it makes more sense to consider legal validity of a law from the perspective of natural law rather than positive law because it includes not only the previously set up legal system when considering validity, but it also considers the general idea of some kind of morality as well. A sub argument is that the starting legal system must have had some basis by which to have been created and accepted which must be some form or notion of morality.