SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2
SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS 2026
SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS 2026
, Assignment 02
SUS1501 – Sustainability and Greed
1) Kant’s method and the problem at hand
Immanuel Kant argues that moral actions must be guided by maxims that can be
willed as universal laws. The test asks: If I adopt a particular rule of action, could I
rationally will that everyone act on that same rule in similar circumstances? If the
answer is yes, the maxim qualifies as morally permissible; if no, it is morally suspect.
A corollary is Kant’s emphasis on treating humanity, in oneself and others, as an end
in itself, never merely as a means.
Applied to the statement about wealth, we can extract a plausible maxim behind
option A: “If I work hard and earn wealth, I deserve to keep that wealth because hard
work justifies it.” The critical move is to universalize this maxim and examine its
implications for a world where everyone acts on the same principle.
2) Formulating and universalizing the maxim
The core maxim to test is, in paraphrase: “When I work hard and earn wealth, I am
morally justified to retain that wealth because effort justifies possession.” If we
universalize this, we get: “Everyone who works hard and earns wealth is morally
justified in keeping it because effort justifies possession.”
There are two immediate questions Kant would press:
- Does universalizing this maxim respect the dignity and autonomy of others, or does
it risk treating others merely as means to personal wealth? If the social structure that
allows one to earn vast sums rests on exploiting others, paying below fair wages, or
denying basic rights, then the universalized maxim may fail the humanity
requirement—because it would legitimate treating people as mere instruments in the
pursuit of personal gain.
- Would the universalized maxim undermine the very conditions that allow people to
pursue wealth in the first place? In other words, would a world where “hard work
justifies wealth” become stable or coherent if everybody acted on it in isolation from
issues like opportunity, luck, social supports, and fair rules? Kant’s test is not
primarily about economic efficiency or inequality per se, but about whether the rule
ASSIGNMENT 2
SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS 2026
SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 1
ANSWERS 2026
, Assignment 02
SUS1501 – Sustainability and Greed
1) Kant’s method and the problem at hand
Immanuel Kant argues that moral actions must be guided by maxims that can be
willed as universal laws. The test asks: If I adopt a particular rule of action, could I
rationally will that everyone act on that same rule in similar circumstances? If the
answer is yes, the maxim qualifies as morally permissible; if no, it is morally suspect.
A corollary is Kant’s emphasis on treating humanity, in oneself and others, as an end
in itself, never merely as a means.
Applied to the statement about wealth, we can extract a plausible maxim behind
option A: “If I work hard and earn wealth, I deserve to keep that wealth because hard
work justifies it.” The critical move is to universalize this maxim and examine its
implications for a world where everyone acts on the same principle.
2) Formulating and universalizing the maxim
The core maxim to test is, in paraphrase: “When I work hard and earn wealth, I am
morally justified to retain that wealth because effort justifies possession.” If we
universalize this, we get: “Everyone who works hard and earns wealth is morally
justified in keeping it because effort justifies possession.”
There are two immediate questions Kant would press:
- Does universalizing this maxim respect the dignity and autonomy of others, or does
it risk treating others merely as means to personal wealth? If the social structure that
allows one to earn vast sums rests on exploiting others, paying below fair wages, or
denying basic rights, then the universalized maxim may fail the humanity
requirement—because it would legitimate treating people as mere instruments in the
pursuit of personal gain.
- Would the universalized maxim undermine the very conditions that allow people to
pursue wealth in the first place? In other words, would a world where “hard work
justifies wealth” become stable or coherent if everybody acted on it in isolation from
issues like opportunity, luck, social supports, and fair rules? Kant’s test is not
primarily about economic efficiency or inequality per se, but about whether the rule
