Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant's categorical imperative
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 (7.6 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:
A world in which everyone takes ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's work would be a world
of chaos and inequality. The economy would collapse, there would be widespread poverty, and
social unrest would be rampant. It is simply not conceivable that such a world could exist.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world:
No, I would not rationally act on my maxim in a world ruled by the universal law. In such a world, my
actions would be self-defeating. If everyone took ZAR 1.9 billion, then the value of money would
plummet and I would not be able to buy anything with it. I would also be contributing to the chaos
and inequality that would inevitably result from such a system.
Step 2: Form an opinion
What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
Kant would have likely condemned van Dijk's earnings as being unethical. He would have argued that
van Dijk's actions are not based on a universalizable maxim, and that they would lead to a world of
chaos and inequality. Kant would have also argued that van Dijk's earnings are not based on merit,
and that they are therefore unfair.
Why do you think this?
I think Kant would have condemned van Dijk's earnings for the following reasons:
Van Dijk's maxim is not universalizable. If everyone took ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a
year's work, then the economy would collapse and there would be widespread poverty.
Van Dijk's actions are not based on merit. He is not the only person who works hard, and he
is not the only person who contributes to the success of Naspers.
Van Dijk's earnings are unfair. They create a society in which a small number of people have
a great deal of wealth, while the majority of people struggle to make ends meet.
What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
I think van Dijk's earnings are unethical and unfair. They are a symptom of a society that is
increasingly divided between the rich and the poor. I believe that we need to find ways to distribute
wealth more equitably, and that we need to create a society in which everyone has a fair chance to
succeed.
Why do you think this?
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 (7.6 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:
A world in which everyone takes ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a year's work would be a world
of chaos and inequality. The economy would collapse, there would be widespread poverty, and
social unrest would be rampant. It is simply not conceivable that such a world could exist.
4. Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world:
No, I would not rationally act on my maxim in a world ruled by the universal law. In such a world, my
actions would be self-defeating. If everyone took ZAR 1.9 billion, then the value of money would
plummet and I would not be able to buy anything with it. I would also be contributing to the chaos
and inequality that would inevitably result from such a system.
Step 2: Form an opinion
What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
Kant would have likely condemned van Dijk's earnings as being unethical. He would have argued that
van Dijk's actions are not based on a universalizable maxim, and that they would lead to a world of
chaos and inequality. Kant would have also argued that van Dijk's earnings are not based on merit,
and that they are therefore unfair.
Why do you think this?
I think Kant would have condemned van Dijk's earnings for the following reasons:
Van Dijk's maxim is not universalizable. If everyone took ZAR 1.9 billion when they've done a
year's work, then the economy would collapse and there would be widespread poverty.
Van Dijk's actions are not based on merit. He is not the only person who works hard, and he
is not the only person who contributes to the success of Naspers.
Van Dijk's earnings are unfair. They create a society in which a small number of people have
a great deal of wealth, while the majority of people struggle to make ends meet.
What do you think about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
I think van Dijk's earnings are unethical and unfair. They are a symptom of a society that is
increasingly divided between the rich and the poor. I believe that we need to find ways to distribute
wealth more equitably, and that we need to create a society in which everyone has a fair chance to
succeed.
Why do you think this?
