Universalizability: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
{{distinguish|Universalism|Universalization}} |
{{distinguish|Universalism|Universalization}} |
||
{{primary sources|date=November 2014}} |
{{primary sources|date=November 2014}} |
||
{{Refimprove |
|||
| date = January 2017 |
|||
}} |
|||
The concept of '''universalizability''' was set out by the 18th-century [[Germany|German]] philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] as part of his work ''[[Groundwork of the |
The concept of '''universalizability''' was set out by the 18th-century [[Germany|German]] philosopher [[Immanuel Kant]] as part of his work ''[[Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals]]''. It is part of the first formulation of his [[categorical imperative]], which states that the only morally acceptable [[Maxim (philosophy)|maxims]] of our actions are those that could rationally be willed to be universal law.<ref>{{cite book|last=Kant|first=Immanuel|url=https://archive.org/details/groundingformet000kant|title=Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals|publisher=Hackett|year=1993|isbn=0-87220-166-X|edition=3rd|page=[https://archive.org/details/groundingformet000kant/page/30 30]|translator-last=Ellington|translator-first=James W.|orig-year=1785|url-access=registration}}</ref> |
||
The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. |
The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. An action is socially acceptable if it can be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it).{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}} |
||
For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible. |
For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible. |
||
| Line 14: | Line 11: | ||
Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a [[performative contradiction]], because they undermine the very basis for their existence.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals|last=Kant|first=Immanuel|date=1998-01-01|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521626958|editor-last=Gregor|editor-first=Mary|pages=53|oclc=47008768}}</ref> |
Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a [[performative contradiction]], because they undermine the very basis for their existence.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals|last=Kant|first=Immanuel|date=1998-01-01|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521626958|editor-last=Gregor|editor-first=Mary|pages=53|oclc=47008768}}</ref> |
||
Kant's notion of universalizability has a clear antecedent in [[Rousseau]]'s idea of a [[general will]]. |
Kant's notion of universalizability has a clear antecedent in [[Rousseau]]'s idea of a [[general will]]. Both notions provide for a radical separation of will and nature, leading to the idea that true freedom lies substantially in self-legislation.{{Citation needed|date=January 2017}} |
||
==See also== |
|||
*[[Categorical imperative]] |
|||
*[[Deontology]] |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
| Line 22: | Line 23: | ||
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]] |
[[Category:Concepts in ethics]] |
||
[[Category:Metaphysical properties]] |
|||
[[Category:Kantianism]] |
[[Category:Kantianism]] |
||
Latest revision as of 02:19, 26 October 2023
 |
The concept of universalizability was set out by the 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant as part of his work Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. It is part of the first formulation of his categorical imperative, which states that the only morally acceptable maxims of our actions are those that could rationally be willed to be universal law.[1]
The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances. An action is socially acceptable if it can be universalized (i.e., everyone could do it).[citation needed]
For instance, one can determine whether a maxim of lying to secure a loan is moral by attempting to universalize it and applying reason to the results. If everyone lied to secure loans, the very practices of promising and lending would fall apart, and the maxim would then become impossible.
Kant calls such acts examples of a contradiction in conception, which is much like a performative contradiction, because they undermine the very basis for their existence.[2]
Kant's notion of universalizability has a clear antecedent in Rousseau's idea of a general will. Both notions provide for a radical separation of will and nature, leading to the idea that true freedom lies substantially in self-legislation.[citation needed]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Kant, Immanuel (1993) [1785]. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Ellington, James W. (3rd ed.). Hackett. p. 30. ISBN 0-87220-166-X.
- ^ Kant, Immanuel (1998-01-01). Gregor, Mary (ed.). Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Cambridge University Press. p. 53. ISBN 9780521626958. OCLC 47008768.