kant 2 Flashcards
(16 cards)
Describe the concept of universalizability in ethics.
Universalizability is the idea that moral maxims should be applicable to all individuals in similar situations, reflecting a cross-cultural human intuition about fairness.
Explain how universalizability relates to the golden rule.
Universalizability is a secularized version of the golden rule, which states that one should treat others as they would like to be treated.
Identify a strength of universalizability as an ethical principle.
A strength of universalizability is that it encapsulates a widely shared human intuition about fairness across different cultures.
Discuss a weakness of universalizability in relation to non/universalizable maxims.
A weakness is that not all non/universalizable maxims are distinctly immoral or moral, as some may be trivial or non-moral.
Provide an example of a non-moral maxim that could be universalizable.
An example is ‘Always eat mussels on Mondays in March,’ which does not present a moral obligation despite being universalizable.
How does Alasdair McIntyre critique universalizability?
McIntyre argues that many immoral and trivial non-moral maxims can be vindicated by Kant’s test, suggesting that universalizability does not always lead to moral duties.
What is a potential issue with the maxim ‘it’s acceptable for people born on February 29th to steal’?
The issue is that this maxim could be universalized without contradiction, yet it promotes immoral behavior, challenging the effectiveness of universalizability in determining moral duties.
Explain the role of teachers in applying universalizability in discipline.
Teachers often use the principle of universalizability by asking students to consider how they would feel if they were treated the same way they treated others, reinforcing fairness.
Explain the concept of universalizability in relation to stealing.
Universalizability suggests that if only a minority of people steal, the concept of property remains intact, meaning that stealing can be considered a universal action without undermining the moral framework of property.
Describe a non-universalizable maxim that is not distinctly immoral.
A rich person giving lots of money to charity is an example of a non-universalizable maxim, as not everyone can give large sums of money, yet it does not seem immoral to act on this maxim if one is able.
Evaluate the criticism of Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative.
The criticism that Kant’s first formulation is overly abstract is countered by his second formulation, which provides a more concrete framework for evaluating maxims.
How does Kant’s second formulation of the categorical imperative protect his theory?
Kant’s second formulation protects his theory by requiring that maxims must treat people as ends in themselves and not merely as means, ensuring moral integrity in actions.
Define the moral implications of breaking promises according to Kant.
Breaking promises is considered immoral by Kant because it treats others as mere means to an end, violating the principle of respecting individuals as ends in themselves.
Explain the significance of treating people as ends in Kant’s ethical framework.
Treating people as ends is significant in Kant’s ethical framework as it establishes a clear moral content, distinguishing between trivial actions and those with moral weight.
Do actions like eating mussels in March have moral implications according to Kant?
According to Kant, actions like eating mussels in March are non-moral or trivial because they do not involve treating people as ends, thus lacking moral significance.
What is the relationship between maxims and moral duties in Kant’s philosophy?
In Kant’s philosophy, for a maxim to be considered a moral duty, it must pass both the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative, ensuring it respects the dignity of individuals.
