Assignment no 2
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant’s categorical
imperative (We've done the first 2 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 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; and finally
"All people will take ZAR 1.9 Billion when they've done a year's
work in order to get really, really rich." In all fairness if all
people, 7 billion of them, will take ZAR 1.9 Billion van Dijk per
annum’s work whichever organisation they work for will run out
of funds, - In all fairness if all people, 7 billion of them, will take
ZAR 620 000 000.00 per annum’s work whichever organisation
they work for will run out of funds, van Dijk s maxim is not
conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such
a world.
Answer - If there was more than enough money in the
organisation to pay all 1.9 billion people. In a world ruled by the
universal law it will be conceivable that all 7 billion people earn
ZAR 1.9 Billion per annuum’s work. Maxim will pass stage 3
,However people will soon stop working because the money is
too much for them, they no longer need any more money and
others will fall into a trap of greedy, they will want more, they
will not be satisfied by the money they earn, they don’t want to
be equal, new problems will arise. They will stop acting on this
maxim for different reasons, greedy or satisfaction. Step 4 will
fail.
Step 2: Form an opinion
On the basis of your analysis, answer the following questions:
1.What would Dijk 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).
Answer - Immanuel Dijk (1724–1804) First published Mon Feb
23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 7, 2016 - Kant
characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and
unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any
natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary.
According to his philosophy quoted above he will not agree on
me earning ZAR 1.9 Billion because that is irrational and I'm
not doing the right thing for the right reasons and the motive
behind my earning is purely my fleshly desire. My immoral
action is irrational because they violate the CI.
2.What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion ?
I think earning such an amount of money is really
greediness.
3. Why do you think this?
- I would regard it as not greedy if all people below him were
satisfied with their earnings. Employees don’t afford to buy
houses, to get descent health care, their families are among
poor families. firstly in our country we already battling with
, distribution of wealth amongst people. Basson earning so much
money is not doing justice to our already corrupt situation. I
believe if the organization has enough money to give someone
such amount then this money should be equally distributed to
other people, this is fair enough. People working there can't
afford some essentials things and the increase would help them
a lot.
Question 1 of 20
0.5 Points
“Greed is good”
My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:
A. It’s not good or bad. It’s just how things are.
B. Absolutely! If it wasn’t for greed we would never achieve anything.
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant’s categorical
imperative (We've done the first 2 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 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; and finally
"All people will take ZAR 1.9 Billion when they've done a year's
work in order to get really, really rich." In all fairness if all
people, 7 billion of them, will take ZAR 1.9 Billion van Dijk per
annum’s work whichever organisation they work for will run out
of funds, - In all fairness if all people, 7 billion of them, will take
ZAR 620 000 000.00 per annum’s work whichever organisation
they work for will run out of funds, van Dijk s maxim is not
conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such
a world.
Answer - If there was more than enough money in the
organisation to pay all 1.9 billion people. In a world ruled by the
universal law it will be conceivable that all 7 billion people earn
ZAR 1.9 Billion per annuum’s work. Maxim will pass stage 3
,However people will soon stop working because the money is
too much for them, they no longer need any more money and
others will fall into a trap of greedy, they will want more, they
will not be satisfied by the money they earn, they don’t want to
be equal, new problems will arise. They will stop acting on this
maxim for different reasons, greedy or satisfaction. Step 4 will
fail.
Step 2: Form an opinion
On the basis of your analysis, answer the following questions:
1.What would Dijk 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).
Answer - Immanuel Dijk (1724–1804) First published Mon Feb
23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 7, 2016 - Kant
characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and
unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any
natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary.
According to his philosophy quoted above he will not agree on
me earning ZAR 1.9 Billion because that is irrational and I'm
not doing the right thing for the right reasons and the motive
behind my earning is purely my fleshly desire. My immoral
action is irrational because they violate the CI.
2.What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion ?
I think earning such an amount of money is really
greediness.
3. Why do you think this?
- I would regard it as not greedy if all people below him were
satisfied with their earnings. Employees don’t afford to buy
houses, to get descent health care, their families are among
poor families. firstly in our country we already battling with
, distribution of wealth amongst people. Basson earning so much
money is not doing justice to our already corrupt situation. I
believe if the organization has enough money to give someone
such amount then this money should be equally distributed to
other people, this is fair enough. People working there can't
afford some essentials things and the increase would help them
a lot.
Question 1 of 20
0.5 Points
“Greed is good”
My personal opinion on this statement is most closely described by:
A. It’s not good or bad. It’s just how things are.
B. Absolutely! If it wasn’t for greed we would never achieve anything.
