Now, how does a maxim relate to a universal law? Well a maxim is the basic building block of a universal law. A maxim is an ought to statement. An example would be I should go get to class on time because I might miss something. A universal law is when you apply a maxim to the entire rational population. Using the previous example, a universal law would be every rational person should get to class on time.
Source
Kant says that every time we need to make an ethical decision we should do these steps: 1) make a personal maxim 2) universalize the law 3) look at the universalized law and see if it is something that every rational person should do. If the answer is yes, then that is an ethical decision.
However, Kant's ethical policy does not, in fact, account for the final product of ones actions. If the good will in the action is there then someone acted ethically regardless of what the results are. This does not seem like a problem necessarily. But I would like to put it in terms of the trolley dilemma that we spoke of in the first week of class. You can be concerned with either the action of the consequences of the action. The action is the item that Kant is concerned about. As long as the action comes from good will then the action is ethical. But when I answered the trolley dilemma I was concerned with the consequences of the action not the action itself. I would pull the lever because killing one person is better than killing five. But Kant would be concerned with the action of pulling the lever. I would have a problem with Kantian ethics for this reason.
What I liked about this post was how it applied previous concepts we discussed in class to our present discussion on Kant. I had generally agreed with Kant's decision making process, but framing it in light of the Trolley Dilemma does put a different spin on it. I have to agree with Caitlin. Kant's way of viewing the world seems somewhat problematic if all your ever focused on is that the action comes from good will. I thought this was a very intuitive way to approach Kant and that it was done really well.
ReplyDeleteAlong with James, I also like this post because of the way you seamlessly connected our new topic of discussion: Kant, with what we have discussed up to this point. The Trolley Dilemma creates controversy regardless of whose philosophical principles you put to the test. I agree that if using Kant's ideals, I would find this problematic as well. Focusing solely on the actions that are the results of good will would most likely cause detriment to the results of the action itself. I liked the way you made the reader pull information from what we have learned previously, their own thoughts, and the new topic of Kant all into one post– very well done!
ReplyDeleteCaitlin,
ReplyDeleteThe beginning of your post discussing the concept of maxims was very well put. The explanation was simple and built on what we talked about in class. This helped me understand the concept better, so thank you! I agree with that other comments--your writing on the problems with applying Kant's ethics to the Trolley Dilemma was thought provoking. During class on Friday I also thought back to the "actor, action, consequence" discussion while we were talking about the example of feeding the homeless. The consequence of the doughnuts was unforeseen, so for defining good Deontology works in that example to me. But in the Trolley problem one can't help but think of the immediate consequences of their action! Thus, I agree with you that defining the good will in that situation as Kant would (i.e. leaving out the factor of consequence) is problematic.