confusing Kant

There is a ‘Golden rule’ regarding morality which goes something like this: ‘do unto others as you would do unto yourself’. While you may have heard this as a child it is prominent in other cultures and religions. However it is not a sound proposition. What if you were on an island full of masochists or sadists? It wouldn’t work so well then would it? Or couldn’t a prisoner use this on a judge to avoid punishment?

While Kant agreed with the general universal principle which the Golden Rule extolled, he felt that a modification was definitely needed to make up for its shortcomings. He uses this very obscure phrase to suggest what he means:

I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law. (Kant, 1785, in set book, p. 510) 

 

But what the hell does this mean? Here is my take….You shouldn’t act on a statement of intent (maxim) if you cannot see the general population rationally choosing (willing) to do the same. Or, in other words, is the maxim univeralisable.

What this does NOT mean is that personal prudential reasoning should be a consideration for morality. In fact personal inclination is irrelevant for morality. Kant prefers that people make the rational choice based on the universal principle rather than the choices based on personal inclination.

There is two aspects of whether we can will that society choose a maxim. (that society will choose rationally)

The first is if the maxim contradicts itself and becomes irrational it cannot be willed. Take for instance the maxim ‘we should make promises that we don’t intend to keep’. Suppose we can imagine a world in which everyone followed this maxim. In this case there would be no truth or trust in which anyone could rely on. The promise would not exist so the maxim is irrational. How can you will a fake promise if a promise does not exist.

Another example is the maxim or the fair weather friend: ‘ we should only befriend people for short term gain’. Well if everyone does this no one would really be a friend (as we know it). Thus a ‘friend’ would not exist. Both this examples are the same as the maxim 2+2=5. Well this is irrational and we cannot expect people to follow this maxim. Ie we cannot conceive of this world

The second aspect is Kant’s argument if that the will (remember meaning ‘rational choice’) does not ‘conflict with itself’. (p105). Take for instance the ‘miser who wants what is best for himself and cares not to lend his money to other’. Well if everyone followed this maxim the individual would not get ahead as he could not rely on anyone, everyone would be on the take. Kant suggests that the miser’s maxim is not ‘reasonable’ for everyone to adopt. This reasonableness should supersede personal inclination.  

But whoa whoa hang on Nelly! Isn’t this second aspect doing exactly what Kant suggested we shouldn’t do: ‘use prudential reasoning as a consideration for morality’? Well, no he isn’t! There is a subtle difference.  You are taking you out off the consequences. You are not saying that you act in a way in which real life choices (of being a miser) will have real life consequences on you life, rather you are only envisaging a world of misers and how this would effect everyone.

Another problem is that you could adapt a maxim to be sneaky. Therefore insincere liars could be seen as not universalisable, but specific maxims could be: Ie. ‘if I happened to be in a bank on 1.15pm on Thursday, and I would stand to gain from promising insincerely, I will do so’. Or ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’. The very specifics of these maxims mean they fulfil both aspects of Kant’s universalisable test. They maxim does not lead to irrational contradictory consequences and their ends do not defeat their general principle. One counter-argument made by the author is to make the maxim’s general and specific. So rather than saying ‘When I am in a position of making Brendan Mcfadden richer by murdering people not called this, I will do so’, this should be modified as ‘people murder people for personal gain’. This falls down on Kant’s principle because in a world where everyone murders each other everyone will be murdered, including myself.