Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A maxim is thought to be part of an agent's thought process for every rational action, indicating in its standard form: (1) the action, or type of action; (2) the conditions under which it is to be done; and (3) the end or purpose to be achieved by the action, or the motive. The maxim of an action is often referred to as the agent's intention.
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.
Universalizing a maxim (statement) leads to it being valid, or to one of two contradictions—a contradiction in conception (where the maxim, when universalized, is no longer a viable means to the end) or a contradiction in will (where the will of a person contradicts what the universalisation of the maxim implies).
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.) then they are true of all other cases of this sort.
The categorical imperative (German: kategorischer Imperativ) is the central philosophical concept in the deontological moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant.Introduced in Kant's 1785 Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, it is a way of evaluating motivations for action.
The Practical Contradiction Interpretation: were the maxim to be universalized, the agent would be unable to achieve the purpose in their maxim. Korsgaard argues that the Practical Contradiction Interpretation is the correct interpretation. She further argues that there are two ways a maxim may violate the formula of universal law:
Dictum de omni (sometimes misinterpreted as universal instantiation) [2] is the principle that whatever is universally affirmed of a kind is affirmable as well for any subkind of that kind. Example: (1) Dogs are mammals. (2) Mammals have livers. Therefore (3) dogs have livers. Premise (1) states that "dog" is a subkind of the kind "mammal".
Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics applies universally.That system is inclusive of all individuals, [7] regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature. [8]