Ethics: Universalism/ Categorical Imperative

Primary Source: Immanuel Kant, "The Categorical Imperative," as published in James E. White's, "Contemporary Moral Problems", Tenth Edition, 2012

Quick Look

What is it?

Universalism is a rule-based ethical system. Every action a person takes creates a universal maxim , i.e., "All men at bars should lie to women to impress them." You as the individual are making decisions you would want everyone in your situation to make. The Categorical Imperative is, "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."

Strengths:

-Very black-and-white system of ethics

-Takes the subjective and turns it into an objective standard

-Forces a person to understand others viewpoints and take them into consideration for any action

-The individual takes all responsibility for their actions

Weaknesses:

-Can often lead to bad consequences ("Do I look fat in this dress?") 

-Depending on the person, a universal rule of "kill all _____" may be instantiated (See: Hitler)

-May be TOO encompassing as a moral system, as there are some morally neutral actions, i.e., buying a chocolate bar or brushing ones teeth 

Universalism, as I like to call it, is a rule-based ethical system. It is focused on an individuals actions and not the outcome of those actions. The categorical imperative (CI) relies on a single, and immediately known maxim as Kant say: "Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (White, 49) The great thing about universalism is that you only act in the way you want others to act, i.e. "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The CI sees every action as being moral, and every action requires an instantiation of some kind or another, which becomes a duty.

The first duty Kant arrives at under this rule is, of course, suicide. Not to commit it, but that it is never ok for anyone to commit suicide. If a person decides to kill themselves, then they are instantiating that everyone OUGHT to kill themselves as well.

The second duty is that a person should not lie. His example is that of a man in need of money to feed himself or buy meth. Something like that. He has a need is the main point. So he decides to take out a loan to purchase more meth knowing that he can never pay it back. What this meth addict is instantiating is, "Any time someone needs money to fulfill a need they have they should borrow money that they know they cannot pay back." If that were the case then a large number of people would be addicted to meth, and after a short period of time people would stop lending money. Capitalism would die, but sales of meth would go crazy.

The third duty which to Kant is also "immediately apparent" is that of using ones talents. Assume you have some talents, or something you're good at. Now, you have the opportunity to use those talents and work hard to make the world a better place, ORRR you can live a life "solely of idleness, indulgence, procreation, and, in a word, to enjoyment." (White, 50) Lets not fool ourselves; you pick the latter option. You immediately instantiate a universal maxim wherein all people who have natural skills should not use them to their fullest abilities but should live a life of mediocrity. Its like living in Walmart all the time. The obviousness of how wrong this scenario is should be readily apparent. Therefore, all people should utilize their natural skills to the best extent they are capable of doing.

There is a last bit about being a wealthy man (for my female readers, use your imagination) and seeing others around you in less fortunate situations, such as the meth addict. Basically you should give to the poor since they need hope and only you can give it to them. Be a nice person. Yeah.

The thing I love the most about universalism is that it is deontological, it adheres to a rule-based system. The question is not, "what will happen because of my actions?", but rather, "what actions am I taking and would I want others to take those same actions?" We can't know what our actions will bring about with certainty, and we cannot know what others will do. We are only in control of our own actions and we are only responsible for our own actions. This does land a universalist in hot water sometimes, though. For instance, say a mad-man carrying an axe comes to you and asks where your friend is so he can kill them. Clearly he wants to chop a tree down for them, right? A deontological perspective will force you to tell him the truth since you would want anyone in your position to tell the truth when asked a question. There is no reason why you should not lead him to the police station though, since you may also want to instantiate that any person who appears to be mad (crazy mad, not angry mad... maybe both) should be brought to the police immediately. So it is possible to subvert certain situations that seem like you are forced to create a situation with less than ideal circumstances.

Some people will use this work-around way of not breaking a maxim to pervert universalism. "I will that someone should only punch an ex-lovers new lover on this date at this time in this place," and it just so happens to be the place you are at. No. No no, no no no no. Universalism states that these maxims are in place FOR GOOD. They cannot be bound to a specific time or situation. If you don't want someone to lie at one time, they cannot lie at any time. If you don't want someone to do meth at one time, they cannot do meth at any time.

One last subject to touch on for this paper is that people must always be the end. You may use someone as a means to an end as long as they will also benefit from the end, or that their positive outcome in a situation is directly related to yours and they are willing to help you achieve it. So you can throw a sticky grenade at your friend in halo knowing that they have an overshield while they run into a group of enemies. Since you're both on the same team you earn points, making both you and your friend an end for your action. However, if you know your friend will die from the blast and they do not know you intend to kill them along with some enemies, then you are not permitted to throw the grenade onto them.

10 second version: Whatever you do you are instantiating it as a universal law for everyone to follow. Don't lie, don't kill yourself, be a nice person. Make people your end goal. Go Packers!

Steve