Philosophy

In this paper I will explain Kant’s Principle of Universalizability and whether or not is captures the difference between right and wrong conduct. I will then take a look at objections to the Principle of Universalizability and consider the Kantian response. Kant’s Principle of Universalizability helps determine whether an act is morally permissible. Kant asserts that to fully determine if an act is morally permissible, the maxim of the act must be universalizable (Nefsky, lec 7, slide 15). To do this, we must create a maxim for the action in question. A maxim of an action comes in two parts, firstly, what you are going to do, and secondly, why you are going to do it. For example, imagine I am eating a filling breakfast before class, my maxim for this action could be eating a filling breakfast so that I have enough energy to focus in class. The act of eating a filling breakfast would be what I am doing and eating to have enough energy to focus in class would by why am I doing the act. Next, we would imagine a world where everyone acts on this maxim (Nefsky, lec 7, slide 16). Following from my above example, we would imagine a world where everyone eats a filling meal before an important event in the day. Finally, we would question whether it is possible for us to act successfully on the maxim in this imagined world. If the answer is yes then the act is universalizable and therefore morally permissible and if the answer is no, the act is not universalizable and thus morally impermissible (Nefsky, lec 8, slide 6). Continuing from the aforementioned example, we would question if it is possible for us to eat a filling meal before an important even in the day in a world where everyone did the same. The answer to this would be yes, as everyone would be filled and able to better focus on important tasks they may have. Therefore, we can conclude that my act of eating a filling breakfast before class was morally right and I acted permissibly.

The Principle of