Formula of the Universal Law (Kant's Ethics #5)
Summary
TLDRThis video explains Kant's Law of Nature formulation of the categorical imperative, focusing on moral actions guided by universal principles. The video defines a maxim as a rule for action and explores Kant's test for determining if a maxim can be universally applied without contradiction. It highlights two key types of contradictions—'contradiction in conception' and 'contradiction in the will'—using examples like false promises and refraining from helping others. The video also addresses a common criticism that specific maxims could pass Kant's test and refutes it by emphasizing the necessity of universality.
Takeaways
- 📜 The 'law of nature' formulation of the categorical imperative states to act according to a maxim you can will to become a universal law.
- 📖 A maxim is a general principle or rule of action, representing both the action and the circumstances under which it takes place.
- 🧠 Willing something means imagining it being done universally, as though it were a law of nature.
- 🧪 The formula creates a moral test: if you can will that a maxim becomes a universal law without contradiction, the action is morally permissible.
- 🚫 If you can't will that a maxim becomes universal, the action is morally forbidden due to a contradiction.
- ❌ There are two types of contradictions: a contradiction in conception (self-contradictory maxims) and a contradiction in the will (conflicting wills).
- 💸 The false promise example shows a contradiction in conception, as a world where everyone lies to get money cannot function logically.
- 🤝 The example of not helping others passes the contradiction in conception test but fails the contradiction in the will test, as rational agents would want to be helped when in need.
- 🧐 A common criticism of Kant's theory suggests that specific maxims could pass the test, but Kant counters that maxims must be general to be considered universal.
- 🎥 In future videos, the discussion will move toward perfect and imperfect duties, and other formulations of the categorical imperative.
Q & A
What is a maxim according to Kant's Categorical Imperative?
-A maxim is a general principle or rule upon which we act, containing the action one is proposing to do and the circumstances in which the action takes place.
How does Kant's Law of Nature formulation of the Categorical Imperative work?
-It states that one should act according to a maxim that they can will to become a universal law, meaning the action must be reasonable and applicable universally without contradiction.
What does it mean to 'universalize' a maxim?
-Universalizing a maxim means imagining everyone following the same rule or principle as if it were a law of nature. The action should be something everyone can do without contradiction.
What is the difference between contradiction in conception and contradiction in the will?
-A contradiction in conception occurs when the very idea of universalizing a maxim is self-contradictory, while a contradiction in the will happens when one wills two incompatible things at the same time.
Can you give an example of a contradiction in conception?
-Yes, the example of making a false promise to get money illustrates a contradiction in conception. If everyone lied to get money, no one would believe promises, making the act of lying to get money impossible.
What is a contradiction in the will, and can you provide an example?
-A contradiction in the will occurs when a person wills two conflicting desires. For example, if someone wills to never help others but also desires to be helped when in need, they create a contradiction.
Why is the maxim of lying to get money morally wrong according to Kant?
-The maxim is morally wrong because, if universalized, it would lead to a contradiction in conception: in a world where everyone lies to get money, no one would trust promises, and the act of lying would become ineffective.
Why does Kant argue that refraining from helping others is a contradiction in the will?
-Kant argues that not helping others is a contradiction in the will because rational agents would want help when in need. Wishing for help while also willing that no one should help others creates an inconsistency.
Can a highly specific maxim pass Kant's universal law test?
-No, highly specific maxims cannot pass the universal law test because they cannot be applied universally. A maxim like 'Colin from Cornwall can lie' is too specific and contradicts the notion of universal applicability.
How does Kant's Categorical Imperative avoid being too flexible, allowing any maxim to pass?
-Kant's Categorical Imperative avoids this by requiring maxims to be general enough to apply universally, preventing specific personal exceptions from being universalized.
Outlines
🤔 Understanding the Categorical Imperative and Maxims
This paragraph introduces Kant's law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative, which states that one should act according to a maxim that could be universalized as a law of nature. The paragraph defines a maxim as a general principle guiding action and provides an example: 'I will exercise whenever I feel stressed.' The key idea is that even if we don’t consciously consider a maxim while acting, it can be formulated based on the action and its context. The paragraph explains that willing a maxim to be universal means imagining everyone acting on it, and if that’s reasonable, the action is morally permissible.
🔄 Testing Maxims: Universal Law and Reason
This paragraph explores how the law of nature test works. It explains that the test is about reasoning, not about the consequences of universalizing a maxim. If we can will a maxim to become a universal law without contradiction, it is morally permissible. If not, it is morally forbidden. Two types of contradictions are introduced: contradiction in conception, where the action is self-contradictory, and contradiction in the will, where one’s wills conflict with each other. These contradictions render actions morally forbidden.
❌ Contradictions in Conception and the False Promise
Here, the focus is on contradiction in conception. The paragraph uses the example of making false promises to obtain money. If the maxim 'I will get money on a false promise whenever I am in need' is universalized, it leads to a contradiction: everyone would know that promises are lies, making it impossible to deceive and get money this way. The paragraph concludes that the action of lying to get money is morally wrong because it cannot exist as a universal law.
🙅♂️ Contradiction in the Will: Helping Others
This section addresses contradiction in the will. It uses the example of refraining from helping others even when one is well-off. If everyone adopted the maxim 'I will refrain from helping others in need,' it would pass the contradiction in conception test but fail the contradiction in the will. Rational agents would want to be helped when in need, so willing both to refrain from helping and to be helped creates a contradiction. The paragraph illustrates how willing contradictory maxims is irrational and morally impermissible.
🧐 Specific Maxims and a Common Criticism
The final paragraph tackles a criticism of Kant's theory. Some argue that any maxim can be made to pass the law of nature test by making it overly specific, like 'Colin from Cornwall can lie whenever he wants.' However, the response is that maxims must be capable of being universalized, and something so specific cannot be universal by definition. This highlights that universal laws must be general enough to apply to everyone. The paragraph concludes by dismissing the criticism as invalid, setting up the next topic on perfect and imperfect duties.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Maxim
💡Categorical Imperative
💡Universal Law
💡Contradiction in Conception
💡Contradiction in the Will
💡False Promising
💡Willing
💡Helping Others
💡Perfect Duties
💡Imperfect Duties
Highlights
The law of nature formulation of the categorical imperative states: Act only according to that maxim whereby you can will it to become a universal law.
A maxim is a general principle or rule upon which we act; it contains both the action and the circumstances.
When willing a maxim as a universal law, we are imagining everyone following it as if it were a law of nature.
The test of the law of nature is whether a maxim can be willed as a universal law without contradiction.
If a maxim can be willed universally without contradiction, the action is morally permissible. If not, it is morally forbidden.
Kant introduces two types of contradictions that make a maxim morally forbidden: contradiction in conception and contradiction in the will.
A contradiction in conception occurs when the maxim itself is self-contradictory, like trying to will a four-sided triangle.
A contradiction in the will occurs when one wills conflicting actions, such as willing to walk with someone while also willing to avoid walking with that same person.
Kant's false promising example illustrates a contradiction in conception: if everyone lied to get money, lying would no longer work, rendering the maxim self-defeating.
In the refraining from helping others example, Kant argues there is a contradiction in the will: one cannot will both to be helped when in need and to refrain from helping others in need.
The maxim 'I will refrain from helping those in need whenever I can' passes the conception test but fails the will test.
Rational agents would always want to be helped in times of need, which creates a contradiction in willing to never help others.
A criticism of Kant's theory is that someone could pass the law of nature test by creating a very specific maxim, such as only one individual lying for personal gain.
Kant's defense against this criticism is that maxims must be general and universally applicable; a specific maxim cannot be universalized without contradiction.
Universal laws must be general, not specific to a single person or situation, as they need to apply to all rational beings equally.
Transcripts
the law of nature formulation of the
categorical imperative States Act only
according to that Maxim whereby you can
at the same time will that it should
become a universal law now what the
does that mean so in this video we're
going to break that down uh but the
first thing to note is that you may see
the swim location in different ways in
different books and that really just
comes down to translation
um so I've gone to one that is easier
for me to remember firstly what is a
maxim so a maxim is just a general
principle or rule upon which we act it
contains the action one is proposing to
do and the circumstances in which the
action takes place so if you decide to
exercise because you're feeling stressed
we can express that as the maxim I will
exercise whenever I feel stressed we do
that for any action and it doesn't mean
uh that whenever we go to do something
we consciously have some Maxim in mind
right that we're acting on it just means
that when we decide to do something when
we decide to act we could in theory we
can we can always express that as a
maxim now we get to the willing a bit so
at any according to that maximum bar you
can at the same time will that it should
become a universal law and when you will
something it's basically just like
conceiving of it being done and when we
are willing that the maxim becomes
universal law what we're doing is we're
universalizing the maxim basically
we are imagining everyone doing it as if
it is a law of nature so the formula of
the law of nature creates a test in
short when we are morally deliberating
we formulate a maxim then we see if we
could will that maximum universal law
that is that everyone does it if we can
the action is morally permissible if we
can't if we can't will that it would
become the maximum become Universal then
the the action is morally forbidden now
this is not a claim about Universal
consequences so counters and care about
consequences is all about reason if we
want to lie whenever we want a maximum
becomes everyone can lie whenever they
want to we are not Imagining the
consequences of a world in which
everybody lies whenever they want what
we want to know if willing the maxim
universally is contrary to reason there
were two ways in which a universal Maxim
can be contrary to reason the
contradiction in conception and the
contradiction in the will so if a maxim
is a contradiction of either of those
kinds
it's morally forbidden so a
contradiction in conception occurs when
one Wills to bring something about that
in its very conception of
self-contraductory so if I intend to
draw a four-sided triangle for example
I'm conceiving of something entirely
self-contradictory therefore my
willingness country to reason I kind of
will something that can't even be
conceived so it's a contradiction in
conception a contradiction in the will
occurs when there is a conflict between
different actions or ends that one will
so imagine okay so imagine that I go to
school and imagine that I intend to walk
uh to school with you tomorrow so
imagine also that I don't like someone
else and they're called Fred and it's
another I don't like Fred so we don't
really get on it's a bit awkward so I
will to Never Walk uh to school with
Fred it's too awkward now imagine that
you are walking with Fred tomorrow to
school so now I'm guilty of inconsistent
willing I haven't meant to be but um I I
am because I've wheeled both to walk
with you tomorrow and to not walk with
you in the virtual the fact that you're
walking with Fred and I've willed to
never walk with Fred so I've got
inconsistent I've got a contradiction in
the will there because I'm I'm willing
two things
um but both of them can can happen so
let's look at two more examples that
can't use this he uses more but we're
gonna look at two of them here so
there's the false promising example and
the maxim for that is of that action is
I will get money on a false promise
whenever I am in need of money and I
have no other way of getting it so the
test asks us to consider if we could
wear without contradiction that everyone
do this so our maximum becomes everyone
will get money on a false promise
whenever they are in need of money and
have no other way of getting it now Camp
says that we cannot conceive of this
Maxim as a universal law right so it's
guilty of the contradiction in
conception we can't conceive of it
that's the problem and so let's explain
this uh simply it can be a little bit
confusing explaining why this is the
case so basically the maxim is about
lying to get money that's basically what
it is but if we lived in a world in
which everyone lied to get money this
would also entail everyone knowing that
everyone lies to get money we'll just
know that's human nature to lie to get
money so this would mean that when you
lie to get money you wouldn't actually
get any money because everyone just
suspect you of lying to get money
so you couldn't get money by lying so
the maxim is you can lie to get money
but in such a world you would never get
money by lying so that's why it's a
contradiction in conception that it just
can't exist it just can never happen
right we can't we will it just can't
happen it creates a contradiction of
conception so therefore the maximum is
morally wrong it's morally wrong
therefore to lie to try and get money
the second example is the example of
refraining from helping others and the
maxim of the action says I will refrain
from helping those in need whenever I am
in a position to help and despite the
fact that I am well off so basically
we're saying I'm worthy enough to help
others but I don't think I should so I'm
not going to if we universalize that Max
and we get everyone will refrain from
helping those in need whenever they are
in a position to help and despite the
fact that they are well off now Kant
says that this non-helping management
purse is the first test we were all
about right it passes the contradiction
inconception test but not the
contradiction in the world test the
second one and this is because rational
agents would surely want to be helped
whenever they are in need so they would
ask words it they would adopt the maxim
I will that I be helped whenever I am in
need and others are in a position to
help me you know you'd be an idiot to
not want to help when you like really
desperately needed help and someone
could clearly help you
um you know surely you'd want them to
help you therefore we now have a
contradiction because according to Kant
you would be both willing that you'd be
helped when you need it but also willing
that everyone not to help others that
need it and you can't rule both of those
things at the same time
it's like me willing but not willing to
walk to my mate to school it's a
contradiction in the will now I'm going
to finish this video with what with one
interesting counter argument to a
criticism you often hear
um about cancer in specifically this
part of the theory so kant's ethical
theory is often criticized with the
claim that you could get any Maxim to
pass the test uh to pass the law of
nature test if you made it specific
enough so I could say Colin 29 from
Cornwall England can tell a lie for his
own Advantage whenever he wants to and
critics argue that this would pass the
test because I could will it without
contradiction however the Counterpoint
to this is that the maxim must be able
to be willed as a universal law now
something very specific that only
applies to me can't be Universal without
completely contradicts the definition of
universal
has to be able to be applied universally
so universal laws they have to be far
more General in other words it's not
possible to universalize a very specific
maxims so that criticism isn't valid so
that's the end of this video so in the
next video we'll look at perfect and
imperfect duties and then we'll go on
later to look at the other formulations
of the categorical imperative thank you
for watching see you next time
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Kant's Categorical Imperative (Deontology)
What is Kantian Ethics? (Philosophical Definitions)
Introducing Deontological/Kantian Ethics
Oliver Perater: Teaching Demo (Introduction to the Deontology Ethics of Immanuel Kant)
The ONE RULE for LIFE - Immanuel Kant's Moral Philosophy - Mark Manson
The Categorial Imperative & Problems for Kantian Ethics
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)