Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) remains the most important voice of opposition to utilitarianism,
and to its claim that the ultimate point of morality is to improve well- being rather than do justice.
Consistency and Fairness
People are inconsistent to the extent that they treat similar cases differently. Our deep
opposition to unfairness, and the resulting importance we attach to consistency, are revealed in
two very popular tests of morality. Each takes the form of a question:
1. What if everyone did that?
2. How would you like it if I did that to you?
Question 1 is really shorthand for the following test: if disastrous results would occur if everyone
did X, then X is immoral. In many cases, the test works perfectly fine. But the test fails for other
cases, and so it cannot serve as a reliable way to learn the morality of actions. The real problem
for this test, apart from the fact that it sometimes delivers mistaken verdicts, is that it makes the
morality of an action depend on how it is described.
The other test (question two) is a direct application of the golden rule, which tells you to treat
others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule is the classic test of morality. It is clearly
meant to be a test of consistency. Getting people to imagine what it would be like to switch
places with their intended victims is often a very effective way to convey a moral message. The
golden rule cannot be correct. Kant himself identified the basic reason for this. The golden rule
makes morality depend on a person's desires. The golden rule also fails to give us guidance on
self-regarding actions. Because the golden rule sometimes gives the wrong answer to moral
questions, it cannot be the ultimate test for morality.
The Principle of Universalizability
Kant felt the appeal of the two tests just discussed. He thought he found an alternative for the
two tests in the following standard, the principle of universalizability: An act is morally
acceptable, if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable.
A maxim is simply the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something.
A maxim has two parts: it states what you are about to do, and why you are about to do it. You
dictate your own maxims, rules you live by. A maxim is nothing but a record of that intention and
its underlying reason. If we lack a maxim, then we aren't really acting at all. Kant thought that an
action's rightness depends on its maxim. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do
with results. This is a clear break with consequentialism. Many people agree with Kant's view
that the morality of our actions depends on our maxims. It is crucial that the morality of our
actions depends entirely on what is within our control. We can control which maxims will govern
our actions. How can we tell whether a maxim is universalizable?
1. Formulate your maxim clearly - state what you intend to do, and why you intend to do it.
2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim
3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?
If the answer to the last question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable, and the action is
morally acceptable. The test of a maxim's universalizability clearly echoes the rule of the
consequentialist's test for optimific social rules, and the what if everyone did that? test. The
importance, for Kant, is that this three-part test serves as the real way to determine whether we
are being consistent and fair. If our maxim is universalizable, then we are pursuing actions for
and to its claim that the ultimate point of morality is to improve well- being rather than do justice.
Consistency and Fairness
People are inconsistent to the extent that they treat similar cases differently. Our deep
opposition to unfairness, and the resulting importance we attach to consistency, are revealed in
two very popular tests of morality. Each takes the form of a question:
1. What if everyone did that?
2. How would you like it if I did that to you?
Question 1 is really shorthand for the following test: if disastrous results would occur if everyone
did X, then X is immoral. In many cases, the test works perfectly fine. But the test fails for other
cases, and so it cannot serve as a reliable way to learn the morality of actions. The real problem
for this test, apart from the fact that it sometimes delivers mistaken verdicts, is that it makes the
morality of an action depend on how it is described.
The other test (question two) is a direct application of the golden rule, which tells you to treat
others as you would like to be treated. The golden rule is the classic test of morality. It is clearly
meant to be a test of consistency. Getting people to imagine what it would be like to switch
places with their intended victims is often a very effective way to convey a moral message. The
golden rule cannot be correct. Kant himself identified the basic reason for this. The golden rule
makes morality depend on a person's desires. The golden rule also fails to give us guidance on
self-regarding actions. Because the golden rule sometimes gives the wrong answer to moral
questions, it cannot be the ultimate test for morality.
The Principle of Universalizability
Kant felt the appeal of the two tests just discussed. He thought he found an alternative for the
two tests in the following standard, the principle of universalizability: An act is morally
acceptable, if, and only if, its maxim is universalizable.
A maxim is simply the principle of action you give yourself when you are about to do something.
A maxim has two parts: it states what you are about to do, and why you are about to do it. You
dictate your own maxims, rules you live by. A maxim is nothing but a record of that intention and
its underlying reason. If we lack a maxim, then we aren't really acting at all. Kant thought that an
action's rightness depends on its maxim. For Kant, the morality of our actions has nothing to do
with results. This is a clear break with consequentialism. Many people agree with Kant's view
that the morality of our actions depends on our maxims. It is crucial that the morality of our
actions depends entirely on what is within our control. We can control which maxims will govern
our actions. How can we tell whether a maxim is universalizable?
1. Formulate your maxim clearly - state what you intend to do, and why you intend to do it.
2. Imagine a world in which everyone supports and acts on your maxim
3. Then ask: Can the goal of my action be achieved in such a world?
If the answer to the last question is yes, then the maxim is universalizable, and the action is
morally acceptable. The test of a maxim's universalizability clearly echoes the rule of the
consequentialist's test for optimific social rules, and the what if everyone did that? test. The
importance, for Kant, is that this three-part test serves as the real way to determine whether we
are being consistent and fair. If our maxim is universalizable, then we are pursuing actions for
