Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A universal maxim, however, could only have this form if it were a maxim that each subject by himself endorsed. Because it cannot be something which externally constrains each subject's activity, it must be a constraint that each subject has set for himself.
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:
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.
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed" is a legal maxim. It is the concept that any action can be taken unless there is a law against it. [1] [2] It is also known in some situations as the "general power of competence" whereby the body or person being regulated is acknowledged to have competent judgement of their scope of action.
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 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]
Maxims of equity are legal maxims that serve as a set of general principles or rules which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They tend to illustrate the qualities of equity, in contrast to the common law, as a more flexible, responsive approach to the needs of the individual, inclined to take into account the parties' conduct and worthiness.
The Kingdom of Ends is a hypothetical state of existence that is derived from Kant's categorical imperative.A Kingdom of Ends is composed entirely of rational beings, whom Kant defines as those capable of moral deliberation (though his definition expands in other areas) who must choose to act by laws that imply an absolute necessity.