, PLEASE USE THIS DOCUMENT AS A GUIDE TO ANSWER YOUR ASSIGNMENT
STEP 2: EVALUATE THE ACT USING KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3. IS THE MAXIM CONCEIVABLE IN A WORLD RULED BY THE UNIVERSAL LAW?
To apply Kant’s categorical imperative, we must first identify the relevant maxim. A possible maxim
derived from the background statement about Patrice Motsepe’s wealth could be formulated as follows: “It
is morally permissible to accumulate vast personal wealth through lawful economic activity, even where
significant inequality exists.”
According to Immanuel Kant, the first formulation of the categorical imperative requires that one act only
according to maxims that one could will to become universal laws (Kant, 1785/1993). Therefore, we must
ask whether this maxim could be consistently universalised without contradiction.
If everyone adopted the maxim of pursuing and accumulating as much wealth as possible through lawful
means, the system of economic exchange would not logically collapse. Market economies already function
on the basis of competition and profit-seeking. Thus, there is no immediate logical contradiction in
conceiving such a world.
However, Kant distinguishes between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will (Kant,
1785/1993). While universal wealth-seeking may be logically possible, it could undermine the cooperative
moral conditions necessary for economic stability if individuals treat others merely as instruments of profit.
If universalised wealth accumulation results in exploitation, deception, or disregard for dignity, then the
maxim undermines the very rational agency that makes economic interaction possible.
Therefore, the maxim is conceivable only if wealth accumulation remains constrained by moral duty and
respect for persons. Without these limits, the universalisation risks eroding the moral foundations required
for rational coexistence.
4. WOULD YOU RATIONALLY ACT ON YOUR MAXIM IN SUCH A WORLD?
The second stage of the universalisation test requires asking whether one could rationally will to live in a
world governed by this maxim. Kant insists that morality demands impartiality; one must accept the
universal consequences of one’s chosen principle (Kant, 1785/1993).
If I will that everyone may pursue extreme wealth, I must also accept the possibility that I may not be among
the wealthy. In a world governed by competitive accumulation, inequality may be severe. The key question
is whether such a world respects persons as ends in themselves.
STEP 2: EVALUATE THE ACT USING KANT’S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3. IS THE MAXIM CONCEIVABLE IN A WORLD RULED BY THE UNIVERSAL LAW?
To apply Kant’s categorical imperative, we must first identify the relevant maxim. A possible maxim
derived from the background statement about Patrice Motsepe’s wealth could be formulated as follows: “It
is morally permissible to accumulate vast personal wealth through lawful economic activity, even where
significant inequality exists.”
According to Immanuel Kant, the first formulation of the categorical imperative requires that one act only
according to maxims that one could will to become universal laws (Kant, 1785/1993). Therefore, we must
ask whether this maxim could be consistently universalised without contradiction.
If everyone adopted the maxim of pursuing and accumulating as much wealth as possible through lawful
means, the system of economic exchange would not logically collapse. Market economies already function
on the basis of competition and profit-seeking. Thus, there is no immediate logical contradiction in
conceiving such a world.
However, Kant distinguishes between a contradiction in conception and a contradiction in will (Kant,
1785/1993). While universal wealth-seeking may be logically possible, it could undermine the cooperative
moral conditions necessary for economic stability if individuals treat others merely as instruments of profit.
If universalised wealth accumulation results in exploitation, deception, or disregard for dignity, then the
maxim undermines the very rational agency that makes economic interaction possible.
Therefore, the maxim is conceivable only if wealth accumulation remains constrained by moral duty and
respect for persons. Without these limits, the universalisation risks eroding the moral foundations required
for rational coexistence.
4. WOULD YOU RATIONALLY ACT ON YOUR MAXIM IN SUCH A WORLD?
The second stage of the universalisation test requires asking whether one could rationally will to live in a
world governed by this maxim. Kant insists that morality demands impartiality; one must accept the
universal consequences of one’s chosen principle (Kant, 1785/1993).
If I will that everyone may pursue extreme wealth, I must also accept the possibility that I may not be among
the wealthy. In a world governed by competitive accumulation, inequality may be severe. The key question
is whether such a world respects persons as ends in themselves.
