SUS1501
Assignment 2
Semester 1
Due 16 March 2026
, 3. Evaluating the Conceivability of a Maxim in a World Ruled by Universal Law
Because Kant's test is actually quite practical once you break it down. We start with a
maxim about wealth accumulation, like the one that might underpin Patrice Motsepe's
estimated US$4.2 billion net worth. The maxim could be stated simply: "I will
accumulate as much wealth as possible through legitimate means, prioritizing my own
financial gain." Now, Kant asks us to imagine a world where everyone acts on this exact
principle. Not just some people, but every rational agent, all the time.
The question is whether this world is logically conceivable. Could such a universal law
function without collapsing in on itself? If everyone prioritises their own financial gain
above all else, even through means that are technically legal, we run into a problem.
The concept of "legitimate means" starts to fray. If those means include paying workers
the absolute minimum, avoiding environmental responsibilities, or leveraging
monopolistic positions, then universalising this behaviour creates a contradiction. Why?
Because the very systems that enable wealth creation depend on a baseline of trust,
cooperation, and mutual respect. If every employer pays poverty wages, the workforce
cannot sustain itself as consumers. If every business externalises costs onto the
environment, the resources needed for production degrade. The market itself, which the
maxim relies upon, would cease to function effectively.
Kant is not against wealth per se. His concern is with the principle behind the action. A
maxim that permits treating people or the planet as mere instruments for personal gain
cannot be universalised without undermining the conditions that make rational,
purposeful action possible. A world where everyone relentlessly pursues boundless
personal wealth, with no regard for the dignity of others or the health of shared systems,
is a world that would struggle to sustain the basic social fabric. The contradiction is not
just economic, it is moral. The maxim, when universalised, defeats its own purpose
because it erodes the very community and stability that any rational agent, including the
wealth accumulator, depends upon. Therefore, such a maxim fails the test of
conceivability under the universal law.
Assignment 2
Semester 1
Due 16 March 2026
, 3. Evaluating the Conceivability of a Maxim in a World Ruled by Universal Law
Because Kant's test is actually quite practical once you break it down. We start with a
maxim about wealth accumulation, like the one that might underpin Patrice Motsepe's
estimated US$4.2 billion net worth. The maxim could be stated simply: "I will
accumulate as much wealth as possible through legitimate means, prioritizing my own
financial gain." Now, Kant asks us to imagine a world where everyone acts on this exact
principle. Not just some people, but every rational agent, all the time.
The question is whether this world is logically conceivable. Could such a universal law
function without collapsing in on itself? If everyone prioritises their own financial gain
above all else, even through means that are technically legal, we run into a problem.
The concept of "legitimate means" starts to fray. If those means include paying workers
the absolute minimum, avoiding environmental responsibilities, or leveraging
monopolistic positions, then universalising this behaviour creates a contradiction. Why?
Because the very systems that enable wealth creation depend on a baseline of trust,
cooperation, and mutual respect. If every employer pays poverty wages, the workforce
cannot sustain itself as consumers. If every business externalises costs onto the
environment, the resources needed for production degrade. The market itself, which the
maxim relies upon, would cease to function effectively.
Kant is not against wealth per se. His concern is with the principle behind the action. A
maxim that permits treating people or the planet as mere instruments for personal gain
cannot be universalised without undermining the conditions that make rational,
purposeful action possible. A world where everyone relentlessly pursues boundless
personal wealth, with no regard for the dignity of others or the health of shared systems,
is a world that would struggle to sustain the basic social fabric. The contradiction is not
just economic, it is moral. The maxim, when universalised, defeats its own purpose
because it erodes the very community and stability that any rational agent, including the
wealth accumulator, depends upon. Therefore, such a maxim fails the test of
conceivability under the universal law.
