Studied by 1 person
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
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
