Applying Kant's Universal Law: A Practical Guide

Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is a way of evaluating motivations for action. It is a central concept in his deontological moral philosophy.

Kant's Categorical Imperative can be formulated as: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.

This means that for an action to be moral, it must be possible to will that everyone should act in the same way in similar circumstances.

Kant's Formula of Universal Law, as the first formulation of the Categorical Imperative is known, demands that one act only on the basis of maxims that one can will as universal laws.

Kant's Formula of Universal Law can be interpreted as a decision procedure for moral reasoning. First, formulate a maxim that enshrines your proposed plan of action. Second, recast that maxim as a universal law of nature governing all rational agents. Third, consider whether your maxim is even conceivable in a world governed by this new law of nature. If it is, then, fourth, 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.

Kant's Formula of Universal Law

The Formula of Universal Law states that we should:

> Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

This means that we should act only on maxims that we can will as universal laws without generating a contradiction. A maxim is a subjective volitional principle that an agent acts on. Acting on the basis of a maxim implies willing that it serves as one's own action principle.

> Act as if the maxims of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature.

This is because laws of nature are, by definition, universal.

• The Humanity Formula
• The Autonomy Formula
• The Kingdom of Ends Formula

The Categorical Imperative and Contradiction

The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is a way of evaluating motivations for action.

Kant's most prominent formulation of the categorical imperative, known as the Formula of Universal Law (FUL), is generally thought to demand that one act only on maxims that one can will as universal laws without this generating a contradiction.

Kant's view is standardly summarized as requiring the ‘universalizability’ of one’s maxims and described in terms of the distinction between ‘contradictions in conception’ and ‘contradictions in the will’. Kant insists that impermissible maxims ‘contradict themselves’ and involve a ‘self-contradiction in the will’.

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative states that you are to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of all of morality.

Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative can be interpreted as requiring that one be able to will two things simultaneously without self-contradiction, namely, that a maxim be one’s own and that it be a universal law. This amounts to a new interpretation of the FUL with significant interpretive and philosophical advantages.

Kant's most influential positions in moral philosophy are found in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter, “Groundwork”) but he developed, enriched, and in some cases modified those views in later works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well as his essays on history and related topics.

Kant's ethical theory emphasizes reason, autonomy, and a respect for the humanity of others. These central aspects of his theory of individual moral choice are carried over to his theories of humanity’s history and of ideal political organization.

The Law of Nature Formulation

Kant's Law of Nature Formulation is closely connected with the idea of a universal law, which are by definition universal. Thus, Kant claims that we may also express the Categorical Imperative as: "Act as if the maxims of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."

Kant divides the duties imposed by this formulation into two sets of two subsets. The first division is between duties that we have to ourselves versus those we have to others. For example, we have an obligation not to kill ourselves as well as an obligation not to kill others. Kant also introduces a distinction between perfect and imperfect duties. Perfect duties are those that are blameworthy if not met, as they are a basic required duty for a human being. Imperfect duties, on the other hand, are still based on pure reason, but they allow for desires in how they are carried out in practice.

The Contradiction in Conception Test

The test involves imagining a world where everyone necessarily acts in a certain way in relevant circumstances, and then checking if the maxim and its associated action would still be conceivable in such a world. For example, the maxim "kill anyone who annoys you" would result in self-termination if universalised, and is therefore irrational.

The test can be understood as asking whether one can will a maxim as one's own and simultaneously will this maxim as a universal law without self-contradiction. This interpretation highlights the importance of the simultaneity condition in Kant's formula, which is often omitted.

Kant's Contradiction in Conception Test is a central part of his Categorical Imperative, which is the foundation of his deontological moral philosophy.

The Contradiction in the Will Test

Immanuel Kant's most prominent formulation of the Categorical Imperative is known as the Formula of Universal Law (FUL). The FUL is generally thought to demand that one act only on maxims that one can will as universal laws without this generating a contradiction. Kant's view is standardly summarised as requiring the ‘universalizability’ of one’s maxims and described in terms of the distinction between ‘contradictions in conception’ and ‘contradictions in the will’.

Kant's Categorical Imperative is an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must follow despite any natural desires we may have to the contrary. The Categorical Imperative is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. It is a way of evaluating motivations for action.

Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative states that you are to "act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law" (G 4:421). This is the principle which motivates a good will, and which Kant holds to be the fundamental principle of all of morality.

Kant insists that impermissible maxims ‘contradict themselves’ and involve a ‘self-contradiction in the will’. However, on the standard interpretations, it is impossible to interpret this in an ordinary sense of ‘self-contradiction’.

The FUL requires that one act only on maxims that one can “simultaneously will as a universal law” (GMS, AA 04: 421, emphasis added). On leading interpretations, this simultaneity condition is routinely omitted from the description of the FUL. On the interpretation defended by some, by contrast, it is essential to articulating the moral criterion expressed by the Formula. It is argued that the FUL requires that one ask whether one can will a maxim as one’s own and simultaneously will this maxim as a universal law. Maxims are impermissible if willing both simultaneously constitutes a self-contradiction of the will – which is termed a volitional self-contradiction.

Kant's Categorical Imperative can be applied to the issue of suicide motivated by a sickness of life. A man reduced to despair by a series of misfortunes feels sick of life, but is still so far in possession of his reason that he can ask himself whether taking his own life would not be contrary to his duty to himself. Now he asks whether the maxim of his action could become a universal law of nature. But his maxim is this: from self-love I make as my principle to shorten my life when its continued duration threatens more evil than it promises satisfaction. There only remains the question as to whether this principle of self-love can become a universal law of nature. One sees at once a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the very same feeling that acts so as to stimulate the furtherance of life, and hence there could be no existence as a system of nature. Therefore, such a maxim cannot possibly hold as a universal law of nature and is, consequently, wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty.

Kant's Categorical Imperative can also be applied to the issue of lying. Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as he knows that he will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it were universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. In each case, the proposed action becomes inconceivable in a world where the maxim exists as law. In a world where no one trusted one another, the same is true about manipulative lies.

Kant's Categorical Imperative can also be applied to the issue of theft. Kant argued that any action taken against another person to which he or she could not possibly consent is a violation of perfect duty as interpreted through the second formulation. If a thief were to steal a book from an unknowing victim, it may have been that the victim would have agreed, had the thief simply asked. However, no person can consent to theft, because the presence of consent would mean that the transfer was not a theft. Because the victim could not have consented to the action, it could not be instituted as a universal law of nature, and theft contradicts perfect duty.

Frequently asked questions