KDE Objections

First objection to categorical imperative

issue with universalizability and mobility

explain the first objection to the CI - universalisable but wrong

can there be a maxim that is universalisable but it would be wrong to act on?

It is possible that any action can be justified as long as we phrase the maxim cleverly for example stealing for a party gift: maybe the maxim could be ‘to steal gifts from large shops and when there are 7 letters in my name‘. the case is so rare that it would not break down any current concept

Kant’s reply to universalisable but wrong

the theory concerns what are maxim is, not some hypothetical made-up version

we need to be honest with ourselves - the real maxim is’t to do with a gift or type of shop etc, it is to do with taking what I want when I can’t afford it, this is not a good example

Better example of universaliable but wrong

borrowing money without intending to repay, purely because my situation is bad; is the maxim ‘to make a promise I don’t intend to keep rather than ask for help but only in the face of such desperate circumstances‘ universalisable?

this maxim is universalisable, as it would be infrequent enough to not break down promise making

Kant’s reply to better example

if we do not think this is wrong then the objection fails, however, if we do think it is wrong then we can say that the CI fails to give us the right answer.

Philippa Foot - morality as a system of HIs

critiques the claim that failing to act in accordance with the CI is morally wrong and irrational, argues that there are no CIs because what is rational dependent on personal desires/intentions