Question

Categorical imperative = universal moral law

•Formulation 1: Act only on that maxim you could at the same time will to become universal law.

•Formulation 2: Treat humans always as ends in themselves, never as means only.

a) Brainstorm an example of an ethical situation (like Kant’s examples of suicide, failing to keep promises, wasting talents, or neglecting others)

b) Explain in your own words how BOTH formulations of the categorical imperative require that you act in one way and not another. Write out the MAXIM (the specific practical rule; e.g., I ought not waste my talents) and the UNIVERSAL LAW (e.g., because I cannot will that everyone should waste their talents, and because doing so would be treating myself as a means rather than an end.)

c) Does the categorical imperative tell you to act in the way you actually think is best? Do you think you have been using something like the categorical imperative in your own life so far?

Answer 1

I ought not to spend too much money on luxuries.

1. I cannot will that everyone in the world spends excessive money on luxuries as this would lead to excessive spending and an uncertain future for all.
2. Doing so would require me to treat others as a means to an end as I would demand unnecessary services from others for my comfort.

In my view, this categorical imperative does serve to guide our behaviour and can be very helpful in morally ambiguous circumstances. I have frequently used the second formulation in my interaction with and treatment of other individuals.