A substantive moral theory immediately

promulgates the specific actions that

comprise that theory. As such, it identifies the
particular duties in a straightforward manner
that people must follow.

A moral theory is basically a way to figure out

what actions are right and wrong. There are
different kinds of moral theories, but today
we’re focusing on what’s called a “substantive”
moral theory.

So, what does “substantive” mean in this

context? It just means that this theory isn’t
vague or general. It gives us specific, clear
instructions about what we should or shouldn’t
do in certain situation.
####
For example, imagine you’re walking in a park
and you see someone drop their wallet. A
substantive moral theory might say, “You
should pick up the wallet and return it to
them,” or “You should never steal.”

This is different from a more abstract moral

theory, which might only tell you to “be a good
person” without giving specific advice on what
actions to take. A substantive theory, on the
other hand, directly tells you what your duties
are.
In contrast, a formal moral theory does not
supply the rules or command straightaway. It
does not tell you what you may or may not
do. Instead, a formal theory provides us the
“form” or “framework of the moral theory”.

####
Example: Imagine you’re at a grocery store and
see someone accidentally drop a $20 bill.
Instead of a rule that says “always return lost
money,” a formal moral theory would have you
think through the situation. You’d consider
values like honesty and compassion, asking
yourself questions like, “What would be fair to
the person who lost the money?” and “How
would I feel if I were in their place?” This
framework would guide you to act in a way
that feels morally right—perhaps by returning
the money—without simply following a rigid
rule.

To provide the “form” or “framework” of a

moral theory is to supply a procedure and the
criteria for determining, on one’s own, the
rules and moral commands. Metaphorically,
we can think of a cookbook as akin to a
formal moral theory. In using a cookbook, we
are given instructions on how to cook certain
dishes, but we are not given the actual food
themselves, which would be “substantive “.

Think of a cookbook provides you with recipes

and instructions on how to make a dish, but it
doesn’t give you the actual food. In the same
way, a formal moral theory gives you a
“recipe” or guidelines for making moral
decisions, but it doesn’t give you the exact,
specific answers for each situation

*****
To be exact, a formal moral theory will not
give us a list of rules or commands. Instead, it
will give us a set of instructions on how to
make a list of duties or moral commands

Kant wrote in 1785, the Grundlegung ur

Metaphysik der Sitten, which embodies a
formal theory in what he calls the categorical
imperative, which provides a procedural way
of identifying the rightness or wrongness of
an action.

Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

Book by Immanuel Kant, he introduced an idea
known as the categorical imperative. This is
part of his formal moral theory, and it’s
basically a method or “procedure” for figuring
out whether an action is right or wrong.
Instead of listing rules like “do this” or “don’t
do that,” the categorical imperative offers a
way to test actions to see if they could be
considered morally good.
Furthermore, he mentioned, act only
according to such a maxim, by which you can,
and at once, will, that it becomes a universal
law.

A maxim is a subjective principle of action

essentially, it is the personal rule or guiding
intention behind a person’s action. In Kant’s
moral philosophy, a maxim reflects the
underlying reasoning or motivation that drives
an individual to act in a particular way.

##### An example of a maxim that reflects the

underlying reasoning or motivation behind an
action could be:
“I will not break promises, because I value trust
and believe that keeping promises builds
strong relationships.”

This maxim shows the motivation behind the

action: the person is not just refraining from
breaking promises because it’s the right thing
to do, but because they deeply value trust and
the strength of relationships. #####

This idea means that you should only act

according to rules (or maxims) that you’d be
okay with everyone following, everywhere, all
the time. In simpler terms, before you do
something, ask yourself, “What if everyone did
this? Would it be good for everyone, including
me?” If the action would work well and make
sense if everyone did it, then it’s okay to do.
But if the world would fall apart or be worse
off if everyone acted that way, then it’s not the
right thing to do. Basically, only follow actions
that you’d be okay with becoming a universal
rule for everyone.

Four key Elements in the Formulation of a

Categorical Imperative:

ACTION
MAXIM
WILL
UNIVERSAL LAW
Action: This is the specific thing you’re
considering doing. For example, telling the
truth or lending a hand to someone in need.

Maxim: This is the personal rule or reason

behind your action—the “why” you’re doing it.
For example, “I should tell the truth because
honesty is important.”

Will: This is your motivation or intent to act in

a certain way. It’s the inner commitment to
follow your maxim. It means you genuinely
want to act on your principle, not just because
you have to.

Universal Law: This is the idea of making your

maxim a rule that everyone would follow. Ask
yourself, “Would it make sense for everyone to
act this way?” If the answer is yes, then it could
be a good, moral action. If not, it may be best
to reconsider.

Putting it all together, the categorical

imperative asks if you would want your action,
reason, and intent to become a rule for
everyone. If you’re okay with everyone doing
the same, then it’s a strong moral choice.
Kant states that we must formulate an action
as a maxim, which he defines as a “subjective
principle of action.” We have many maxims in
our daily lives, and we live according to them.
A maxim that is universalizable is a personal
rule, adopted and complied by everyone, thus
imagining a maxim as a law which everyone is
ought to follow.

According to Kant, a good maxim is one that

could be universalized—meaning it’s a rule
that everyone could follow without causing
problems. If you imagine that everyone lived
by the same rule, and it would create a fair and
good world, then it’s a maxim that could be
seen as a universal law. So, Kant encourages us
to act only on those maxims we’d want
everyone else to follow as well, making our
personal principles into rules that could apply
to everyone.

So, to test if a maxim is morally right, imagine

it as a law that everyone, everywhere, would
follow in the same situation. If the maxim
could work well for everyone without causing
issues, then it’s a solid principle to live by.
The test for universalizability makes possible
that self-legislation, for the result of the
categorical imperative, is nothing other than
the capacity to distinguish between
permissible and impermissible moral acts.
Any rational will can then begin the work of
producing a list of duties, what a rational and
autonomous will believes to be right and
wrong actions.

The *universalizability test* is a way to help us

judge whether an action is morally acceptable
or not. When we apply this test, we’re
essentially “self-legislating”—we’re deciding
for ourselves what rules we should follow,
based on whether we’d be okay with everyone
else following the same rule.

Using this test helps us understand which

actions are morally okay (permissible) and
which ones aren’t (impermissible). If an action
passes the test—meaning we’d want it to
become a rule everyone follows—then it’s
likely a good, moral action.

Here’s an example of the universalizability test

in action:

####
Let’s say you’re considering lying to avoid
getting into trouble. Your maxim (or personal
rule) might be, “I’ll lie when it helps me avoid
consequences.”
To test if this maxim is universalizable, ask:
*What if everyone followed this rule and lied
whenever it suited them?* If everyone lied to
avoid consequences, trust in communication
would break down, and people wouldn’t
believe each other anymore. Society would
struggle because honesty would lose all value.

Since this maxim would create serious issues if

everyone followed it, it fails the
universalizability test. Therefore, lying in this
situation would be considered morally wrong
under Kant’s approach.

#####
Let’s say you make a promise to a friend to
meet them at a certain time, but you’re
tempted to break it because you’re tired and
want to stay home. Universalizability asks:
“What if everyone just broke promises
whenever it was inconvenient?” If everyone
did that, promises wouldn’t mean anything,
and trust between people would be lost. So,
keeping promises is important because it’s
something that works best if everyone follows
through on their commitments.