SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 (TWO)
SEMESTER 2
2023
SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 (TWO)
SEMESTER 2
2023
, SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2023
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant's categorical imperative
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)."
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."
Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law:
In a world where every individual earns ZAR 1.9 billion for a year's work, the
economic structure would be vastly different. The value of money would be
diminished due to the sheer volume of it in circulation, leading to hyperinflation and
making the currency virtually worthless (Piketty, 2014). Such a world would be
chaotic, with resources being scarce and the value of work being undermined.
Therefore, it is not conceivable for this maxim to be a universal law as it would
destabilize the global economy.
Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world:
Rationally, one would not act on this maxim in such a world. If everyone earned the
same exorbitant amount, the value of that earning would be nullified. The purpose
of earning, which is to acquire goods, services, and a better quality of life, would be
defeated in a world where everyone has the same inflated income (Stout, 2012).
Step 2: Form an opinion
What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
Kant would likely argue that if an action cannot be universalized without
contradiction or without undermining the very purpose of the action, then it is not
morally permissible (Kant, 1785). Given that van Dijk's earnings, when universalized,
would lead to economic chaos, Kant would probably have said that such earnings are
not morally justifiable.
Why do you think this?
Premise 1: Kant's categorical imperative requires that actions be universalizable
without contradiction (Kant, 1785).
Premise 2: Universalizing van Dijk's earnings would lead to economic instability and
devalue the currency (Piketty, 2014).
ASSIGNMENT 2 (TWO)
SEMESTER 2
2023
SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 (TWO)
SEMESTER 2
2023
, SUS1501 ASSIGNMENT 2 SEMESTER 2 2023
Step 1: Evaluate the act using Kant's categorical imperative
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)."
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."
Ask whether your maxim is conceivable in a world ruled by the universal law:
In a world where every individual earns ZAR 1.9 billion for a year's work, the
economic structure would be vastly different. The value of money would be
diminished due to the sheer volume of it in circulation, leading to hyperinflation and
making the currency virtually worthless (Piketty, 2014). Such a world would be
chaotic, with resources being scarce and the value of work being undermined.
Therefore, it is not conceivable for this maxim to be a universal law as it would
destabilize the global economy.
Ask whether you would rationally act on your maxim in such a world:
Rationally, one would not act on this maxim in such a world. If everyone earned the
same exorbitant amount, the value of that earning would be nullified. The purpose
of earning, which is to acquire goods, services, and a better quality of life, would be
defeated in a world where everyone has the same inflated income (Stout, 2012).
Step 2: Form an opinion
What would Kant probably have said about van Dijk earning ZAR 1.9 billion?
Kant would likely argue that if an action cannot be universalized without
contradiction or without undermining the very purpose of the action, then it is not
morally permissible (Kant, 1785). Given that van Dijk's earnings, when universalized,
would lead to economic chaos, Kant would probably have said that such earnings are
not morally justifiable.
Why do you think this?
Premise 1: Kant's categorical imperative requires that actions be universalizable
without contradiction (Kant, 1785).
Premise 2: Universalizing van Dijk's earnings would lead to economic instability and
devalue the currency (Piketty, 2014).
