universalism Flashcards
(20 cards)
universability
An action is socially acceptable if it can be universalised - any moral judgement must be equally applicable to every relevantly identical situation
a weakness for universability principles: the fanatic
a bully’s governing principle is “I will plunder those who are weaker than me”
what if everyone did that? how would you like it if stronger people plundered you?
I believe so deeply that the stronger should dominate the weaker that I would not complain… I would accept being plundered
Kant’s first formulation of the categorical imperative
“there is therefore only a single categorical imperative and that it is this”
“act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law”
the universal imperative of duty may run as follows:
“act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature”
explained:
universability formula explained
whenever you perform an action, you are guiding yourself by a policy (maxim)
if the success of your action depends upon everyone else not acting from the same policy on which you acted, then your act is morally wrong
maxim
a principle that an agent can adopt concerning how to act when they find themselves in a situation of a given type (rules or policies that an individual follows)
‘whenever i am in situation of type C i will perform an act-token of type A’ “whenever class is boring, I will sit at the back with my laptop and watch cat videos”
willing
“agent S wills that p comes true” S has a sincere intention to bring about that p comes true
to will that inconsistent states of affairs come true is a paradigmatic example of irrationality - not mere wanting or wishing
consistent willing
‘can…consistently will’
D4: ‘agent S consistently wills that p & q at the same time’
‘i will that i never set foot in Australia’ cannot exist as the same time as ‘i will that i will visit Sydney next year’
- only will a maxim that you can realistically will
consistency: is a world in which everyone acted according to the maxim possible, whilst still allowing for the original maxim to be upheld?
FUL applied to examples
the lying promise:
act: patty borrows money from carl, promising to repay; but patty does so knowing she cannot ever repay
the maxim: “when I believe myself to be in need of money, I shall borrow money and promise to repay it, although I know this will never happen”
maxim M1 converted to universal law of nature:
whenever anyone believes themself to be in need of money, they shall borrow money and promise to repay it, although they know that they won’t repay
Q: wherein lies the inconsistency in willing that M1 be a universal law of nature?
you would be irrational to will your maxim to be universal law - she is trying to do something but if her maxim was universal law she would not be able to perform the action
FUL applied to examples
theft:
“were it to be a general rule to take away belongings from everyone, then mine and thine would be altogether at an end”
“for anything I might take from another, a third party would take from me”
this would create a world where there would be no possessions and therefore he would be unable to take possessions from others
the act: theo takes ulrich’s x-box
the maxim: when I want to possess something that someone else already possesses, i will take it from them
universal law of nature: whenever anyone wants to possess something that someone else already possesses, they will take it from them
Q: wherein lies the inconsistency in willing that M1 be a universal law of nature?
universal laws of nature
you have to be able to will your maxim to be a universal law
whenever I am asked a question I will answer it truthfully is changed to → whenever anyone is asked a question, they will answer it truthfully
D2. maxim M is a universal law of nature → everyone acts in conformity with the generalised version of M
“whenever it is grandma’s birthday, I will buy her a card” has become universal law of nature so everyone will need to conform
what if the maxim that the agent wills is contradictory
if there is a contradiction - the act is morally wrong
workshop
Pauls maxim is “whenever I want to watch a TV show and doesn’t want to pay I will pirate the show and watch it illegally”
p1) “whenever anyone wants to watch a TV show and doesn’t want to pay they will pirate it and watch it illegally”
p2) no because then producers of TV shows will not make money for their effort into making the show - no shows will be produced as they are unable to make money from them
and therefore it would not be in his best interest as he would be unable to watch TV shows
c) it implies that Paul pirating the TV show is morally wrong
problems for FUL
objection 1: “eradicating poverty”
you cant assist people who are poor without there being poverty
if you were to love your enemies you will not have enemies - is it consistent?
example: poverty problem
action: giving money to someone who is poor
maxim: whenever I see impoverished people I will give them money
universal law of nature: whenever anyone sees impoverished people they help them by giving them money
you will no longer find people who are impoverished. can you assist everyone in poverty if there are no impoverished people
if everyone acted on the same maxim you wouldn’t be able to act on the maxim and can’t consist it to be a universal law of nature
P1: if FUL is true, then the act of donating money is morally wrong
P2: it is not the case that the act of donating his money is morally wrong
C: it is not the case that FUL is true
not true because it would be inconsistent and false
a Kantian reply
conditional statements can be true as a whole, even when the antecedent never comes true
example:
lifeguard: I will that if someone is drowning on my beach (antecedent) I will drive in and save them (consequent)
yet no one ever drowned at his beach
this does not mean that his maxim/antecedent isn’t true as he intended to save anyone who was drowning
main point:
a person can successfully will a maxim even if its antecedent never comes true
just because you never come across an impoverished person - just because the antecedent doesn’t come true doesn’t mean he can’t will his maxim
objection 2: Harrison’s “false antecedent” argument
example:
whenever I can get money by making a lying promise, I will ask for money and falsely promise to repay it
she can still will it despite the antecedent being unable to come true
P1: Patty can still will her maxim in a world in which it is a universal law of nature
P2: if P1 is true, then FUL implies that Patty’s act of making a lying promise is morally right
P3: it is not the case that Patty’s act of making a lying promise is morally right
C: it is not the case that FUL is true
a Kantian response against P1 of the false antecedent argument
“the contraction is that… your action would become ineffectual for the achievement of your purpose if everyone tried to use it for that purpose.”
“since you propose to (1) use that action for that purpose at the same time that you propose to (2) universalise the maxim, you in effect will the thwarting of your own purpose.”
goal: get money
whenever ANYONE needs money but couldn’t repay a loan, they will ask for a loan with a false promise to pay
goal: no poverty
whenever ANYONE sees impoverished people, they will help them by giving them money
objection 3: jointly impossible innocent acts
metal mark’s action: lining up two hours early for the Metallica concert
goal: get in the front row
maxim: whenever Metallica plays in Perth, I will line up at the venue before anypne
universal law of nature: whenever Metallica plays in Perth, everyone lines up before anyone else
mark’s personal maxim fails to achieve its purpose
yet, this doesn’t make his action of lining up before everyone at the concert immoral
P1. is FUL is true then Mark’s act of lining up 2 hours early is wrong
P2. it is not the case that lining up for a concert is wrong
C. FUL is incorrect
two Kantian replies: against P1 of the jointly impossible acts argument
reply 1: improbable, yes; impossible, no
mark’s achieving his goal is only made improbable in a world in which his maxim is a universal law of nature… but it is not made impossible
reply 2: maybe mark’s maxim is different
“whenever Metallica plays in Perth, and lining up two hours early would make it likely that I get a front row seat, I will line up two hours early.”
objection 4: the maxim specificity objection (empty formalism objection)
Johnathan Harrison
“given any wrong action, you can find a maxim for it which is so specific that it enjoins that action and no other”
Patty: whenever I need money, but could not repay a loan, and the potential lender is so drunk they won’t remember I owe him I will ask for the loan with a false promise to repay”
if everybody in the world is able to do this without detection then the institution of trust won’t be broken down - nobody knows anyone else is lying previously the trust institution breaks down as everyone is lying
P1. if FUL is true, then careful Patty’s act of making a lying promise is morally right
P2. it is not the case that Patty’s act is morally right
C. FUL is incorrect
