Kant’s Deontological Ethics Continued

Applying the Universal Formulation SEP guide:

1. Formulate a maxim that enshrines your reason for acting as you propose
2. Recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents, and so as
holding that all must, by natural law, act as you yourself propose to act in these
circumstances
3. Consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this law of
nature
(if something fails to be a universal maxim, you have a perfect duty to never do that thing)
4. Ask yourself whether you would, or could, rationally will to act on your maxim in such a
world. If you could, then your action is morally permissible
The two tests to determine if something is a maxim - Korsgaard
First test: Is it conceivable
1. Logical contradiction - universalization of false promising undercuts the act of making
promises and is therefore inconceivable. The concept of a false promise requires that
the promise be believed true, which is undercut if that maxim is universalised. Why?
Conceptually, if you universalised false promises, there would be no false promises
because everyone is doing them - there are no real promises to make false ones exist
2. Practical contradiction - maxim’s efficacy in achieving its purpose would undercut my
universalisation. Because all rational agents now make false promises, so no rational
agent would believe any promise.

For example, Kant would say killing one’s self out of self love would fail as a maxim. The
purpose here being self love, is itself life affirming. Putting it into a life ending context undercuts
the idea itself. So, it would fail to be a maxim.

Or in terms of stealing, if you universalise the act of stealing, it undercuts the concept of
ownership/property. In order to steal, you need the idea of property or else no one could really
steal. So, it would fail as a maxim.

Second test: Would you rationally will it?

1. We could conceive some maxims as universal laws but we wouldn’t practically will them
to be laws. This may be because they violate a range of other duties, they are the means
to achieving other duties.
2. In order to achieve all sorts of purposes, we would need to develop our talents. So you
would never rationally will the maxim or else we would miss out on all of those purposes
that we must fulfill. Or for example, you would not will rationally ‘do not help others’
despite the fact that it is conceivable. Universalising that would lead him to miss out on
the assistance he needs from others. To will the ends you must will the means to it.