Immanuel Kants Universalizability Test - Essay Example

1. Universalizability Test A German philosopher Immanuel Kant established the philosophical concept of universalizability that forms the basis of this test. The test is used to make a judgment of the moral character of a given maxim such that if an individual cannot imagine the possibility of a particular thing by all humans then to them it is impossibility. The maxim in question is considered as a universal law when it is established whether it has contradictions (Barbara 31). The test checks for the contradiction of the maxim in either concept or in will. Contradiction in concept involves the fact that the maxim is unable to meet the threshold of being regarded as a universal law without it presenting a contradiction while contradiction in will involves a situation where the maximum cannot be termed as universal law because its will contradicts itself. Perfect duty is the resultant from maxims that fails the test through the contradiction in concept whiles those that fail through the contradiction in will results to an imperfect duty. The universalizability test provides a ground for determining the moral acceptance of actions. It provides that an act that contradicts itself is not morally acceptable and maxims that can be universalized are morally good. The provisions of the test are based on the generality that individuals have the same moral obligations under the same moral situations. The universalizability test involves three basic steps. Firstly, a maxim has to be formulated in order for it to be tested, is then universalized and finally checked for consistency. The failure of universalizability of a maxim is demonstrated by lack of consistency and vice versa. Kant mentions that a maxim that cannot be universalized consistently is ‘practically irrational’. 2. Kant’s example of issuing false promises According to Kant a person can give false witness to escape embarrassment, an act that cannot be universalized (Kant 31). Individuals exhibit different wills based on the beliefs that they harbor, embarrassment is something that does not occur to all persons equally. This particular person gives false promises in order for them to go away without feeling embarrassed, this is an act that does not influence every other person. Therefore, the maxim that embarrassment can emanate from the incidence cannot be generalized whatsoever. It is apparent that actions are motivated by either morality or the person’s inclination; the issue of embarrassment does not fall in either of these. The ultimate result of such a situation is embarrassment since the individual will not be able to fulfill what they had promised; it will be unfair and irrational to universalize such an act. Another failure by the act is that it does not have a moral worth in the maxim it is based on, but instead its morality is based on its purpose (avoiding embarrassment). This means that the act of giving false promise is not morally acceptable because of its consequences; therefore the act cannot be translated to all individuals in the name of avoiding embarrassment. It is common sense that the action of giving false information is contrary to the expectations because it is contrary to duty. In addition, their actions are not motivated by duty but instead an opportunity to avoid duty. This is why the person goes ahead to give false promise, a strategy that according to them will help in avoiding the responsibility that comes with the task ahead of them. Kant’s argument demonstrate that the act cannot be whatsoever universalized, its motivations are misplaced hence cannot be done by people under similar conditions all over the world. The motivation behind giving false promise is the fact that a person is able to avoid embarrassment for the time being. In order to demonstrate the universalability of an act, the maxim thereof is universalized. It must be something that is sustainable and consistent, giving false promise in itself is inconsistent, and it is a matter of time before the truth is known. Such an inconsistency act fails to meet the threshold of being termed as morally acceptable. Therefore, according to Kant’s argument it is evident that an act that lacks consistency is deficient of moral obligation and hence cannot be universalized. 3. The Maxim ‘Do not lie in order to get what you want’ passes the Universalizability Test, According to Kant. From the arguments by Kant, it is possible to conclude that the maxim “Do not lie in order to get what you want” passes the universalizability test. The first thing is the moral consequence of the maxim, lying is an act that is morally unacceptable because of its consequences. In comparison to the truth, falsehood is harmful and presents many other evils that brings conflicts and disagreements among individuals. This makes the act of lying unethical. Secondly, one may be tempted to lie to achieve a certain result that they may be wanting; the challenge comes in enhancing consistency of the act in question. A lie cannot sustain an act because it is deficient of several parameters that can keep an act going, there is the fear for the truth to be revealed and there is suspicion coupled with effort to conceal the truth. When the truth prevails then it means that the acts are morally acceptable because they are sustainable (Barbara 5). The other evidence that supports the universalization of the statement is the fact it is aligned to duty. The maxim requires one to say the truth in order to get what they want; this is in tandem with duty and the responsibility thereof. The motivation of the maxim is a duty to secure something from a truthful presentation of facts, which is a duty that is morally ethical and has moral consequences. The principle behind the expression of the truthful act depicts moral worth (Graziano 4). This maxim is very different from that of issuing false promise to avoid embarrassment. The motivations behind the two maxims are very different and contrary to each other. The aspect of giving false promise is motivated by an act that is not only inconsistent but also it is also morally unacceptable. This means the act is unsustainable and cannot be universalized. In contrary, the act of not lying to get what one wants is very consistent and therefore capable of being universalized. Another strong difference is the principle behind the two maxims; the one for not lying in order to get what one wants is based on the principle of truthfulness and effort while the other stands under the shaky principle of falsehood and avoiding responsibility. Given time the two maxims will be proven wrong or right, a lie cannot be sustained forever hence it is difficult to sustain the maxim on giving of false promise. The other maxim based on truthfulness will remain since it responds to duty, an aspect that contradicts the false promise maxim. Based on these assertions as put forth by Kant it is conclusive that the maxim ‘Do not lie in order to get what you want’ passes the universalizability test while the maxim ‘giving false promises to avoid embarrassment’ fails the test. 4. Opinion on Kant’s universalizability test I would like to assert that it is theoretically possible that the test can produce a reliable moral test based on a true maxim and not an observed maxim. However, on practical basis there is a high likelihood of the test producing invalid results due to the possibility of having false positives and false negatives. If these setbacks are fixed then it is possible to get very reliable results from the Universalizability Test. To fix the issue of false positives and negatives will require a change in the maxim, instead of developing the usual maximum based on observation a true maximum can be used (Graziano 3). However, a true maxim is very much unachievable in real life because of the inability to assess the internal state of humans with precision. A true maxim is one that has the capability of capturing the exact principle of volition behind an act that is being tested for morality. It is practically impossible to develop a perfect true maxim for an action hence presenting a major challenge to the test. Despite this setback the observed traits give a clue of the internal being hence some results can be induced though without precision. Works Cited Barbara, Herman. The Practice of Moral Judgment. Harvard University Press, 1993. Graziano, Richard, G. Kant and the Categorical Imperative. 2012. Web. 12 Dec.2013. http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~rgrazian/docs/courses/231/instruction/kci.pdf Kant, Immanuel. “Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.” Edited by Allen W. Wood. Yale London: University Press. 2002. Web. 12 Dec.2013. http://www.inp.uw.edu.pl/mdsie/Political_Thought/Kant%20-%20groundwork%20for%20the%20metaphysics%20of%20morals%20with%20essays.pdf Kant, Immanuel. “The Foundations of Ethics.” In: Louis, Pojman. Moral Philosophy. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2003. Read More