STEP 1
1.Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal
law; and finally
Considering the proposed maxim more closely, it becomes clear that it is not applicable on a universal
level. The reason is that not all individuals can attain wealth and this proposal fails to take into account
the natural scarcity of resources in the world. It is therefore not conceivable that such a maxim can
become a universal law without contradiction.
Additionally, even if this maxim were to be universalized, it is questionable whether it would lead to a
society that is morally upright. This maxim encourages people to work for only one year and then expect
to receive a colossal amount of money, which may lead to a lack of motivation in people to work any
harder. Furthermore, the maxim seems to ignore the fact that wealth is not necessarily the key to a
satisfying life. In fact, the maxim advocates for an approach that is purely materialistic and does not
address the complexities of human satisfaction.
Thus, from the perspective of the principle of universal law, it is not conceivable that the proposed
maxim can be considered a universally applicable law. It is inconsistent with the principle of scarcity that
governs resources and it also fails to promote a meaningful society. In conclusion, while the idea of
receiving a massive sum of money may be alluring, the maxim of ZAR 1.9 billion in order to attain
ultimate wealth is not morally reasonable or universal.
Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
First, let us consider the feasibility of such a world. A world where everyone can earn R1.9 billion per
year is not possible because it is not a sustainable model. This is not just a matter of economic resources;
it also involves the practicalities of making such large payments to every individual. Such an amount is
, astronomically high, and it raises questions about the source of the income and the sustainability of the
model.
Secondly, such a maxim is not practical. If everyone received R1.9 billion per year, the global economy
would collapse. The rule of supply and demand dictates that if everyone has a lot of money, the value of
money becomes worthless. In such a world, no goods or services could be exchanged, and the global
economy would be in a state of chaos. Nobody would be willing to work for anything less than R1.9
billion, leading to a massive skill mismatch and unemployment.
Lastly, it is not rational to act on this maxim. The human psyche is such that it needs a challenge or a goal
to strive for. Merely receiving R1.9 billion without putting in any effort or labor will not work well for the
human mind. Humans need to feel significant accomplishments and achievements to feel fulfilled. This
maxim undermines the human’s motivation for achievement, robs them of satisfaction from hard work,
and denies them the joy of earning.
In conclusion, it is not rational for humanity to act on such a maxim. The world would become
unsustainable, impractical, and would take away from the human nature to strive for achievement. The
consequences of implementing such an idea would result in the collapse of the global economy, and
humans would lose their sense of purpose and direction. Therefore, while it may seem like a tempting
idea, it is one that should remain a hypothetical scenario, rather than a reality.
STEP 2
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.
1.1.Kant would also argue that van Dijk's earnings could be seen as a
violation of the principle of distributive justice. According to this principle,
individuals should be compensated based on their contributions to society,
with the benefits of social and economic systems distributed fairly. Van
Dijk's earnings seem to contradict this principle, as they are significantly
higher than those of many other people in the company – individuals who
are likely contributing just as much but are not being compensated equally.
1.Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal
law; and finally
Considering the proposed maxim more closely, it becomes clear that it is not applicable on a universal
level. The reason is that not all individuals can attain wealth and this proposal fails to take into account
the natural scarcity of resources in the world. It is therefore not conceivable that such a maxim can
become a universal law without contradiction.
Additionally, even if this maxim were to be universalized, it is questionable whether it would lead to a
society that is morally upright. This maxim encourages people to work for only one year and then expect
to receive a colossal amount of money, which may lead to a lack of motivation in people to work any
harder. Furthermore, the maxim seems to ignore the fact that wealth is not necessarily the key to a
satisfying life. In fact, the maxim advocates for an approach that is purely materialistic and does not
address the complexities of human satisfaction.
Thus, from the perspective of the principle of universal law, it is not conceivable that the proposed
maxim can be considered a universally applicable law. It is inconsistent with the principle of scarcity that
governs resources and it also fails to promote a meaningful society. In conclusion, while the idea of
receiving a massive sum of money may be alluring, the maxim of ZAR 1.9 billion in order to attain
ultimate wealth is not morally reasonable or universal.
Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world.
First, let us consider the feasibility of such a world. A world where everyone can earn R1.9 billion per
year is not possible because it is not a sustainable model. This is not just a matter of economic resources;
it also involves the practicalities of making such large payments to every individual. Such an amount is
, astronomically high, and it raises questions about the source of the income and the sustainability of the
model.
Secondly, such a maxim is not practical. If everyone received R1.9 billion per year, the global economy
would collapse. The rule of supply and demand dictates that if everyone has a lot of money, the value of
money becomes worthless. In such a world, no goods or services could be exchanged, and the global
economy would be in a state of chaos. Nobody would be willing to work for anything less than R1.9
billion, leading to a massive skill mismatch and unemployment.
Lastly, it is not rational to act on this maxim. The human psyche is such that it needs a challenge or a goal
to strive for. Merely receiving R1.9 billion without putting in any effort or labor will not work well for the
human mind. Humans need to feel significant accomplishments and achievements to feel fulfilled. This
maxim undermines the human’s motivation for achievement, robs them of satisfaction from hard work,
and denies them the joy of earning.
In conclusion, it is not rational for humanity to act on such a maxim. The world would become
unsustainable, impractical, and would take away from the human nature to strive for achievement. The
consequences of implementing such an idea would result in the collapse of the global economy, and
humans would lose their sense of purpose and direction. Therefore, while it may seem like a tempting
idea, it is one that should remain a hypothetical scenario, rather than a reality.
STEP 2
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.
1.1.Kant would also argue that van Dijk's earnings could be seen as a
violation of the principle of distributive justice. According to this principle,
individuals should be compensated based on their contributions to society,
with the benefits of social and economic systems distributed fairly. Van
Dijk's earnings seem to contradict this principle, as they are significantly
higher than those of many other people in the company – individuals who
are likely contributing just as much but are not being compensated equally.
