Q

Universalizability intending to pay: the maxim can either make sense or not make sense as a
universal law. By "making sense," we refer to the logical plausibility of the
universalized maxim. The opposite of logical plausibility is self-contradiction or
enumerate the steps to properly evaluate the rightness or wrongness of an action
logical impossibility.
by using the universalizability method

Let us assess that hypothetical world. If borrowing money without intending to pay
Kant endorses this formal kind of formal moral theory. The Grundlegung zur
were everyone's obligation to comply with, what would happen to the status of the
Metaphysik der Sitten (Groundwork), which he wrote in 1785, embodies a formal
universalized maxim? The purpose of borrowing money would be defeated because
moral theory in what he calls the categorical imperative, which provides a
no one will lend money. In a world where it is an obligation to borrow money without
procedural way of identifying the rightness of wrongness of an action. Kant
paying back, all lenders would know that they will not be paid and they will refuse to
articulates the categorical imperative this way:
lend money. The institution of money-borrowing would lose its meaning if everyone
were obligated to borrow money without intending to pay it back. As a universalized
Act only according to such a maxim, by which you can at once will that it become
maxim, it would self-destruct because it becomes impossible. This is how Kant
a universal law. (Ak 4:421).
assesses it:

Here I see straightaway that it could never be valid as a universal law of nature and
There are four key elements in this formulation of the categorical imperative, be consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality
namely, action, maxim, will, and universal law. Kant states that we must formulate of a law that each person, when he believes himself to be in need, could promise
an action as a maxim, which he defines as a "subjective principle of action" (Ak whatever he pleases with the intent not to keep it, would make the promise and the
4:422). In this context, a maxim consists of a "rule" that we live by in our day-to-day purpose that he may have impossible, since no one would believe what was
lives, but it does not have the status of a law or a moral command that binds us to promised him but would laugh at all such expressions as futile pretense (Ak 4:422).
act in a certain way. Rather, maxims depict the patterns of our behavior. Thus,
In the passage above, Kant distinguishes between being "consistent with itself" and
maxims are akin to the "standard operating procedures" (SOPs) in our lives. We act
"contradict itself." Look at the maxim again: "When I am in need of money, I shall
according to a variety of maxims, even if we are not aware of them. Actually, we
borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back." The meaning of the act "to borrow"
become aware of our maxims when we talk about ourselves, when we reveal our
implies taking and using something with the intent to return it. In the maxim, the
habits and the reasons behind them. For example, we tell our friends what we
claim is to borrow "even when I know I cannot pay it back," which contradicts the
ordinarily do in certain specific situations: "When the weekend comes, I usually go
very meaning of "to borrow." The contradiction is evident: to borrow (implies
to the beach with my family to relax." "When the exam week begins, I go to mass so
returning) but the intention is not to return. Of course, roghea real world, many
that I will be blessed with good luck." "Whenever I meet my crush, I wear my hair in a
Petuphen borrow money without intending to pay, but it is the logical plausibility of
braid so that he will notice me." These are usually personal "policies" that may or
the people blized maxim that is at stake. This is then what Kant means by "...] you
may not be unique to us, but we act according to these maxims nonetheless. This is
can at once will that it become [...]" in the formulation of the categorical imperative-
why Kant calls a maxim a subjective principle of action. We have many maxims in
Can have shown here that it is impossible for a rational will to borrow money withou
our daily lives, and we live according to them.
intending to pay, for the will contradicts itself, when it does so. Formulated as a
rhetorical question, we can reflect on it hence: How can I borrow (implies returning)
but my intention is not to return?
In the formulation of the categorical imperative, Kant calls our attention to the kind
of maxims that we live by. He claims that we ought to act according to the maxim Here, we reveal the contradiction that occurs when we scrutinize the maxim
"by which you can at once will that it become a universal law." What does it mean to because, after all, one contradicts oneself when one borrows money (implies intent
will a maxim that can become a universal law? It means that the maxim must be to return) without intending to pay it back. This is why Kant claims that the
universalizable, which is what it means to "will that it become a universal law." This universalized maxim "could never be valid as a universal law of nature and be
means nothing other than to imagine a world in which the maxim, or personal rule, consistent with itself, but must necessarily contradict itself." Thus, we can conclude
that I live by were hypothetically adopted by everyone as their own maxim. In this that the act of borrowing money without intending to pay is rationally impermissible.
formulation, Kant is telling us to conceive of the maxim as if it obligated everyone to Here, we discover two ways by which Kant rejects maxims. The universalized
comply. This mental act of imagining a universalized maxim does not mean we maxim becomes either (1) self-contradictory or (2) the act and its purpose become
picture a world in which everyone actually followed the maxim. Instead, we merely impossible.
imagine that the maxim as a law that everyone ought to follow. The proper way to
What is the result of all these? We reveal the rational permissibility of actions
imagine the universalized maxim is not by asking, "What if everyone did that
insofar as they cannot be rejected as universalizable maxims. This is what happens
maxim?" but by asking, "What if everyone were obligated to follow that maxim?" In
when we evaluate a universalized maxim and it does not confront a contradiction. In
other words, you pretend as if the maxim were a law. Here is a clear example.
contrast, those universalized maxims that are rejected are shown to be
In the Groundwork, Kant takes up the issue of making false promises (Ak 4:422). He impermissible, that is, they are irrational and, thus, in Kant's mind, immoral. But
narrates the predicament of a man who needs money, but has no immediate access what does rational permissibility mean? Simply put, it refers to the intrinsic quality
to obtain it except by borrowing it from a friend. This man knows that he will not be of an action that it is objectively and necessarily rational. Using the universalizability
able to pay the money back, but if he says he cannot return the money, then no test, we can reveal the objective necessity of an action as rational. Observe, for
money will be lent to him. Hence, the predicament is simply about him borrowing example, the quality of the arithmetical claim, "1+1 = 2." It is objectively necessary
money, while knowing that he cannot pay it back. This is a specific act under the because the quality of the claim is universally and logically valid, and we understand
general category of acts called false promises. Kant says that the man would like to this to be always true as rational beings. Observe the difference between the quality
make such a promise, but he stops and asks himself if what he is about to do is of objectively necessary claims with contingent claims, such as claims about the
right or wrong: Is it really wrong to borrow money without intending to pay it back? If world like "The sky is blue, the truth of which depends on the actual situation in the
we were to formulate this act as a maxim, it would go this way: "When I am need of world, and may or may not be true, depending on the speaker's circumstances.
money, I shall borrow it even when I know I cannot pay it back."
Therefore, we have demonstrated that borrowing money without intending to pay,
Remember that Kant states that we should act according to a maxim by which we as a kind of false promise, is objectively and necessarily wrong, insofar as it
can at once will that it become a universal law. What does it mea maxim by which encounters a self-contradiction and logical impossibility when it is universalized as
the maxim about borrowing money without intending to return it? Imagine za a maxim. Simply put, in demonstrating this contradiction and impossibility, we have
Hypothetical world in which each person, whenever she is in need of money, is actually shown that borrowing money without intending to pay is wrong, thus we
obligated to borrow from another even when she knows she cannot pay it back. The can conclude with the moral command, formulated as, such: Do not borrow money
maxim that we formulated, "When I am in need of money, I shall borrow it even without intending to pay.
when I know I cannot pay it back," we hypothetically imagine that maxim as a
universal law, and the result is that we imagine it as everyone's obligation. We do
not imagine that people actually borrowed money without intending to return it.
Instead, we think of them as obligated to do so. Now, there are two possibilities in
this hypothetical world where people are obligated to borrow money without
 Q

HARNESS

Someone reading about the universalizability method here may recognize a

commonplace principle called the "Golden Rule," and claim that there is no
difference between the two. One can ask, isn't the act of universalizing a maxim
akin to doing "unto others as you would have them do unto you"? There are indeed
similarities, but there is a significant difference that makes the universalizability
method a separate formal moral theory, thus it would be a mistake to conflate it
with the golden rule. What is that significant difference? It has to do with the
standard for evaluating rightness or wrongness.

For the golden rule, the standard involves a personal preference, how I would have
other people do something to me, to determine how I will treat others. This is
Subjective and contingent on each person's preference. Take the example of truth-
feling, for example. In the face of a difficult fact, such as sickness or betrayal, there
tre people who would want to know the truth and some others who would refuse to
be told. The corresponding rules for these two kinds of reactions towould refuse to
would then be different. While it seems common-sense to assume that we would
allike to be treated in the same way, the golden rule still remains subjectivwould
contingent.

Compare the golden rule with the universalizability method. Consider this maxim:
"When I am consulting a doctor for an ailment that I have, I shall ask him to tell me
that I am not sick, whatever the results are." Take note of the standard for
evaluating the rightness or wrongness of that maxim: not personal preference, but
logical consistency. When we universalize that maxim and imagine a world in which
everyone ought to ask their doctors to tell them that they are not sick, that
hypothetical obligation would make the very purpose of the consultation
meaningless. For to consult a doctor means to get a proper medical diagnosis
(consulting a doctor for an ailment), and yet the request is not to get a proper
medical diagnosis (ask him to tell me that I am not sick). It is logically impossible to
will that maxim as a universal law, insofar as we have shown the contradiction here.
This reveals that the real standard for the universalizability method is reason, which
returns us to the point that we made in Lesson 2 of this unit, that the basis for moral
agency is the rational will.