Assignment 2.
SUS1501 2024.
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant's categorical imperative (We've done the first two
stages for you)
1. State your proposed act as a maxim:
"van Dijk will take ZAR 1.9 billion (A) when he's done a year's work (C) in order to get
really, really rich (E)."
2. Restate this maxim as a universal law;
"All people (7.6 billion of them) will take ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's
work in order to get really, really rich."
3. Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law.
The maxim would be inconceivable because if all people can take ZAR 1.9 billion
alone the money will make them to be greed and buy unnecessary things. Goods will
soon run out and people will not get foods and clothes at the shops because there
will be no one who will have an idea to start a business. The economy might fall and
poor people will be poorer because they will not be able to have access to needs and
wants as the money will be valueless.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
I cannot act on my maxim because if there is a lot of money around the world it means the
number of people living below poverty will decrease. If I can be a billionaire I will use the
money to help my family and other people who are living under poverty to get foods and
jobs.
, Step 2: Form an opinion.
Analysis above, answer the following questions:
1. What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion? (You
might want to do a bit of research into the nature of van Dijk's 2018/2019
earnings).
Bob van Dijk’s earnings fail at step 3 of the “categorical imperative” formula of the
universal law by Immanuel Kant. Kant would have rejected the earnings of Bob van
Dijk and referred to as perfect duty to refrain acting on this maxim. Bob van Dijk got
a lot of money alone while he did not work alone at the company.
2. Why do you think this? Please state your premises (reasons) explicitly as we taught
you in the section on arguments (A DARN GOOD ARGUMENT - INFORMAL LOGIC).
Bob van Dijk benefited alone at Naspers while he did not do all the job alone and
that is why his earning are immoral. The profit of the company should have been
used to reward all the employees to get equal share instead of rewarding Bob van
Dijk only with ZAR 1.9 billion.
3. What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?.
Bob van Dijk should have used some of the money to help the poor people instead of
taking ZAR 1.9 billion alone. He is greed because he did not think about helping the
poor people who are living below poverty in our country or other countries. He
should have thanked his colleagues because they have played part on his success.
4. Why do you think this? Please state your premises explicitly as we taught you in
the section on arguments (A DARN GOOD ARGUMENT - INFORMAL LOGIC)
SUS1501 2024.
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant's categorical imperative (We've done the first two
stages for you)
1. State your proposed act as a maxim:
"van Dijk will take ZAR 1.9 billion (A) when he's done a year's work (C) in order to get
really, really rich (E)."
2. Restate this maxim as a universal law;
"All people (7.6 billion of them) will take ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's
work in order to get really, really rich."
3. Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law.
The maxim would be inconceivable because if all people can take ZAR 1.9 billion
alone the money will make them to be greed and buy unnecessary things. Goods will
soon run out and people will not get foods and clothes at the shops because there
will be no one who will have an idea to start a business. The economy might fall and
poor people will be poorer because they will not be able to have access to needs and
wants as the money will be valueless.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
I cannot act on my maxim because if there is a lot of money around the world it means the
number of people living below poverty will decrease. If I can be a billionaire I will use the
money to help my family and other people who are living under poverty to get foods and
jobs.
, Step 2: Form an opinion.
Analysis above, answer the following questions:
1. What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion? (You
might want to do a bit of research into the nature of van Dijk's 2018/2019
earnings).
Bob van Dijk’s earnings fail at step 3 of the “categorical imperative” formula of the
universal law by Immanuel Kant. Kant would have rejected the earnings of Bob van
Dijk and referred to as perfect duty to refrain acting on this maxim. Bob van Dijk got
a lot of money alone while he did not work alone at the company.
2. Why do you think this? Please state your premises (reasons) explicitly as we taught
you in the section on arguments (A DARN GOOD ARGUMENT - INFORMAL LOGIC).
Bob van Dijk benefited alone at Naspers while he did not do all the job alone and
that is why his earning are immoral. The profit of the company should have been
used to reward all the employees to get equal share instead of rewarding Bob van
Dijk only with ZAR 1.9 billion.
3. What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?.
Bob van Dijk should have used some of the money to help the poor people instead of
taking ZAR 1.9 billion alone. He is greed because he did not think about helping the
poor people who are living below poverty in our country or other countries. He
should have thanked his colleagues because they have played part on his success.
4. Why do you think this? Please state your premises explicitly as we taught you in
the section on arguments (A DARN GOOD ARGUMENT - INFORMAL LOGIC)
