Kant's Principle Of Universalizability Analysis

The one factor augmenting the dichotomy between what is morally right or wrong is the situation presented; while an idealist, contingent upon their morality not being compromised or questioned, may agree that maximizing net well-being is a valid endeavor, the inner mechanizations of the problem finds an inconclusive credence--what if morality were compromised? Would the idealist, in turn, reduce themselves to turning a blind eye?

Let 's just give a scenario--if a person were running late to their father 's funeral, would it improve their net well-being if they were to cut traffic by driving on the side of the road? An active utilitarian, considering the situation, would most probably say yes as long as it improves the well-being of

An example of a maxim would be running a mile in an effort to reduce body fat--it clearly states an intention and an explanation. Kant believes that an action is impermissible or permissible based on the result of a maxim precisely because it is under control of the person whether or not to perform that action. Kant 's Principle of Universalizability dictates that an action is morally permissible if the maxim is universalizable.

The purpose driving Kant 's rule of universalizability centers around a selfish realization-- if everyone performed the particular action, would society 's overall well-being receive a modicum of benefit? But there lies a bigger picture, Kant doesn 't judge the morality of the action per se but adds whether or not the action would be more difficult to perform if everyone performed it.

One way to judge the universalizability of an action is to submit it to a test--enter the contradiction and conception test which clearly defines whether or not an action is permissible. The test identifies if the action is consistent--first, the test asks to formulate a maxim and to imagine the world where everyone supports and acts on the respective maxim. The last point on the test asks whether or not the goal of the maxim could be achieved in such a world. If the answer was no, then the maxim couldn 't possibly be

An avid supporter of Kant may argue an amoralists paradigm. They may rearticulate Kant 's perception on rationality--all people who choose to be rational are consistent which is a primary law of the Principle of Universalizability. If the Principle of Universalizability is obeyed then the person must be moral. A supporter may conclude the argument by articulating that if one is rational, then one is moral.

But in further analysis, the amoralist has a more fundamental understanding of the human condition. While Kant, who actively couldn 't support the fact that the definition of "rationality" surpasses it 's suggested simplicity, the amoralists are cognizant that refraining from situations that test a person 's well-being do not define them as being "irrational." Kant simply overlooked certain situations.

If a robber came into a bank with the intention of stealing cash, the rational thing to do would prevent the robbery from occurring. The maxim would be ideal, if everyone tried to stop a robber from pointing guns at people, the world would be a fruitful place. But Kant overlooks a couple attributes that, in the situation, encompasses a human driven off fear. First, a person may be anxious and fear for their safety--does not doing anything define a person as