Busto, Marie Ravenne

GED107 – B2
Seatwork 2

1. Based on the lecture and readings, what do these terms mean?

a. Universalizability
“Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would
become a universal law.”
Universalizability is a principle in which when one does something, everyone must
also do it. A genuinely good conduct is one that has the potential in becoming a universal
law, whereas a conduct that is purely self-serving is by definition not able to be
generalized and thus nonexistent. In determining whether one’s actions are deemed to
be considered as a universal law, it usually follows a basic outline. To begin, devise a
maxim that affirms your justification for posing in the manner you plan. Second,
reinterpreted the said maxim as a universal law of nature regulating all logical agents,
implying that all must perform in the manner in which you suggest to act in these
conditions under natural law. Thirdly, ask yourself as to if your maxim is even feasible in
a world ruled by this natural law. If that is indeed the case, then, consider on if you could
and would logically choose to respond on your maxim in such a world. If you can, your
act is morally acceptable. For instance, if a person steals an object and managed to
escape, then others can steal the same object with no consequence. Following this, then
they will end up with a situation plagued by continuous robbery and also some serious
credibility difficulties. In this example, the universal law serves as a rationally strong
foundation for morals and ethics; the universalizability principle will indeed eradicate
burglary, which society recognizes as morally wrong.
b. Humanity
The formula of humanity does not preclude us from using people to accomplish
our goals. Evidently, this is a ridiculous requirement, as people appear to do this on a
regular basis in morally appropriate manner. Admittedly, it is also tough to fathom any
existence that is considered human without relying on someone else to fulfil our
objectives. In instance, humanity is an adverse conclusion in this context: this is
something that prevents what I can do in search with my other ends, much like my end of
self-preservation restricts what I can do in search of those other ends. To the extent that
it constrains my actions, it acts as a means of moral perfection. Still, several of our ends
are contextual in the sense that they are not being universally held by moral agents.
Humanity is an unbiased end in and of itself, as it is a necessary side for any rational
being. Thus, between my own humanity and the humanity of others restrain what I have
been morally authorized to do during pursuit with my other, non-mandatory, ends.
 c. Kingdom of Ends
“So act as if you were always through your maxim a law making member in a universal
kingdom of ends.”
Kant considered the kingdom of ends formula as the alternative of the formula of
autonomy. According to Kant, the preceding notion of each rational will as a will which
must consider itself as passing policies ratifying all rational wills has been inextricably
linked with another notion of a "comprehensive union of distinct rational beings under
national rules." This integrates others in that it involves everyone to correspond our deeds
to the rules of an objective moral legislature, that this legislature enacts universal laws
constraining all rational wills, even our own, and that those rules are those of "a simply
plausible kingdom," each one of whose people shares this position as legislator of
universal laws, and thus should always be regarded as an end in itself. The perceptive
implication of this formula is that our essential moral obligation is to operate only on
fundamentals that would be accepted by a society of truly rational agents, who each has
an equal standing in legislating for their society.