Formula of the Universal Law (Kant's Ethics #5)

Summary

This 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.