, SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 14 AUGUST 2026
2. EVALUATE USING KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3. Is the maxim above conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law?
No, the maxim is not conceivable in a world ruled by this universal law. The very concept of
"wealth" is a relational and comparative one. For one person to possess US
4.2 billion, this implies a system where others possess significantly less, enabling the accumulation
of capital, assets, and value.If all 8.1billion people were to accumulate exactly US 4.2 billion, the
fundamental structures of the global economy—such as production, consumption, investment, and
the valuation of labor—would collapse.
In such a world, the value of money, as a medium of exchange and store of value, would be
rendered meaningless. If every person had the same vast amount of currency, there would be no
one to perform essential but low-paying labour, as everyone would have an equal and immense
"fortune." Who would grow the food, clean the streets, or provide care? The economic system that
allows for the accumulation of such wealth in the first place, which is based on the labour and
consumption of billions, would cease to function. Therefore, the very goal of the maxim—to "get
really, really rich"—becomes impossible because "rich" loses all meaning without a standard of
comparison and a functioning economy. The maxim, when universalized, is self-defeating and
contradictory to its own purpose (Kant, 1785/2012, p. 31).
4. Would you rationally act on the maxim above in such a world?
No, I would not rationally act on this maxim in such a world. Since the universalized law leads to a
world that is inconceivable and self-defeating, it fails the test of the categorical imperative (Kant,
1785/2012, p. 31). I, as a rational being, would be unable to will a world where the very
mechanisms for achieving my goal are nullified. My rational will seeks to create a world where my
actions can succeed and coexist with the actions of others. Because the universalized maxim
destroys the economic foundation upon which the accumulation of enormous wealth is built, it
cannot be a rational principle for action. It is a contradiction in conception: you cannot logically will
a world where everyone gets "really, really rich" because the system required for "richness" is
predicated on inequality. A rational being, therefore, could not choose this as a universal law.
ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2
2026
DUE 14 AUGUST 2026
2. EVALUATE USING KANT'S CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE
3. Is the maxim above conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law?
No, the maxim is not conceivable in a world ruled by this universal law. The very concept of
"wealth" is a relational and comparative one. For one person to possess US
4.2 billion, this implies a system where others possess significantly less, enabling the accumulation
of capital, assets, and value.If all 8.1billion people were to accumulate exactly US 4.2 billion, the
fundamental structures of the global economy—such as production, consumption, investment, and
the valuation of labor—would collapse.
In such a world, the value of money, as a medium of exchange and store of value, would be
rendered meaningless. If every person had the same vast amount of currency, there would be no
one to perform essential but low-paying labour, as everyone would have an equal and immense
"fortune." Who would grow the food, clean the streets, or provide care? The economic system that
allows for the accumulation of such wealth in the first place, which is based on the labour and
consumption of billions, would cease to function. Therefore, the very goal of the maxim—to "get
really, really rich"—becomes impossible because "rich" loses all meaning without a standard of
comparison and a functioning economy. The maxim, when universalized, is self-defeating and
contradictory to its own purpose (Kant, 1785/2012, p. 31).
4. Would you rationally act on the maxim above in such a world?
No, I would not rationally act on this maxim in such a world. Since the universalized law leads to a
world that is inconceivable and self-defeating, it fails the test of the categorical imperative (Kant,
1785/2012, p. 31). I, as a rational being, would be unable to will a world where the very
mechanisms for achieving my goal are nullified. My rational will seeks to create a world where my
actions can succeed and coexist with the actions of others. Because the universalized maxim
destroys the economic foundation upon which the accumulation of enormous wealth is built, it
cannot be a rational principle for action. It is a contradiction in conception: you cannot logically will
a world where everyone gets "really, really rich" because the system required for "richness" is
predicated on inequality. A rational being, therefore, could not choose this as a universal law.
