![[ Return to APA Home Page ]](../../../../../pix/new.gif) Online
Syllabus Collection "What Works" Discussion Boards APA Member Survey Other Resources Navigation
|
APA Committee
on the
|
| Topic: | Introducting Difficult Concepts |
| Name: | Larry Hinman |
| Institution: | University of San Diego |
| E-mail: | hinman@acusd.edu |
| Date Submitted: | 10/19/2000 |
Kant on Universalizability in Ethics
Kant’s formulation of the categorical imperative, “Always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be willed as a universal law,” often seems far from a student’s experience. I often try to close this gap by talking about cheating, lying, and honesty in the classroom. Cheating depends on a maxim or subjective rule that cannot pass the test of being willed as a universal law. The precise formulation of the maxim may vary, but essentially it says that the cheater should be allowed to deceive (cheating involves deception) for the cheater’s own benefit or because of allegedly difficult circumstances or simply because the cheater wants to do so. “It’s okay for me to cheat because, after all, I didn’t have an opportunity to study last weekend because of all the parties I had to attend.” The Kantian question is this: can the cheater will that everyone else adopt the same maxim? One of the reasons this is not possible is simply that cheating depends on gaining an advantage over other people, and this in turn necessitate that the cheater deny to others the very advantage that the cheater is claiming. Notice that this is a consistency argument, not a consequentialist one. The inner logic of cheating, which is about obtaining unfair advantage, precludes extending this possibility to other people. If the point of cheating is to gain advantage, then it cannot be permitted for everyone, since this would undermine the intended advantage. The inner logic of cheating says that, if I cheat, I should also will that everyone else should play by the rules. It is this which insures my advantage. A particularly effective way of illustrating this point is to ask students to imagine the following scenario. A student cheats successfully throughout the semester, thereby getting (if not earning) an average class grade of 97%--a solid “A.” Yet when final grades come out, the student is dismayed to discover a course grade of “D.” Storming into the professor’s office, the student demands to know what happened. The professor calmly replies, “Well, you did have a 97% average, but I just decided to cheat and report a different grade to the Registrar.” The student’s immediate reply would be: “But you can’t cheat.” In other words, the student’s maxim cannot be universalized without thereby undermining itself. Notice, by the way, that this is not a consequentialist argument. The point here is not, “What if everybody did it? Wouldn’t the moral fabric of society disintegrate?” That’s an important argument, but not Kant’s argument. Instead, Kant is saying that the inner logic of maxims involving cheating and lying is such that it preclude the possibility of willing that everyone follow those maxims without undermining the very purpose of the maxim itself. It’s a point about consistency, not consequences.