Kants Universal Law
Kants Universal Law Kant’s universal law states, “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. (Kant pg.37) So in the first instance this appears to me a rule I pretty much live by, and which have often been taught to myself and others as young children in a simpler form of “Treat others how you would like to be treated.”
Kant describes his universal law in several examples and one caught my attention. There is a troubled individual who is need money and while attempting to borrow the funds he knows he will have to agree to repay the loan or no one will approve the loan to him. However, in the case that eventually he is able to find someone to loan him the money this “distress(ed)” (Kant pg.39) individual knows that he will not be able to repay any loan so he will deliberately lies just to secure a loan. This example is great because if an individual was in need of money and was left with no other option but to lie to get the funds does this mean that it would make it alright or acceptable through society to lie to others just so you can secure a loan knowing that there are no active intentions of ever repaying the loan back? The maxim in this example is the rule that the distressed individual uses in making his decision of deliberately lying in order to get the money.
Now the question is if this were to become universal law would it be accepted by all people? The answer is no because Kant’s universal law would suggest that we all act on this maxim. It’s not just that his or my false promise is wrong because I wouldn’t want everyone to live like that, but it is the case that I couldn’t want it, it would be contradictory to do so! If every made false promises the foundation of promising would collapse, as no-one would trust each other. If everyone exploited the institution, there would be no institution left to exploit.
I have often found myself dealing with a
Kant describes his universal law in several examples and one caught my attention. There is a troubled individual who is need money and while attempting to borrow the funds he knows he will have to agree to repay the loan or no one will approve the loan to him. However, in the case that eventually he is able to find someone to loan him the money this “distress(ed)” (Kant pg.39) individual knows that he will not be able to repay any loan so he will deliberately lies just to secure a loan. This example is great because if an individual was in need of money and was left with no other option but to lie to get the funds does this mean that it would make it alright or acceptable through society to lie to others just so you can secure a loan knowing that there are no active intentions of ever repaying the loan back? The maxim in this example is the rule that the distressed individual uses in making his decision of deliberately lying in order to get the money.
Now the question is if this were to become universal law would it be accepted by all people? The answer is no because Kant’s universal law would suggest that we all act on this maxim. It’s not just that his or my false promise is wrong because I wouldn’t want everyone to live like that, but it is the case that I couldn’t want it, it would be contradictory to do so! If every made false promises the foundation of promising would collapse, as no-one would trust each other. If everyone exploited the institution, there would be no institution left to exploit.
I have often found myself dealing with a