Create A Maxime And Evaluate It Via The Three Formulations ✓ Solved

Create a maxim and evaluate it via the three formulations of

Create a maxim and evaluate it via the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The maxim should involve only moral questions and be general enough to apply to first principles, with no circumstantial qualifiers.

You may use examples, but you must include a scholarly definition of each concept with commentary. Do not quote Wikipedia; it may be used as a starting point but cannot be quoted. Include in-text citations (last name, date, pg) and an APA-formatted References page, following Purdue OWL guidelines.

Paper For Above Instructions

A maxim is a subjective rule of action—a principle one gives oneself to guide behavior. In Kantian ethics, the Categorical Imperative defines moral law as that law which reason could will as a universal law for all rational beings. The three formulations of this imperative offer distinct tests for moral permissibility: universal law (the First Formulation), humanity as an end in itself (the Second Formulation), and the Kingdom of Ends (the Third Formulation). To illustrate, I present a maxim that is purely moral and general: “One should refrain from taking what is not one’s own.” This maxim is deliberately stripped of contingent circumstances and aims at a principle that could be evaluated from first principles. By applying Kant’s three formulations, we can assess whether this maxim is morally permissible, and what its acceptance implies about moral law (Kant, 1785/1993, pp. 421–423).

First Formulation: the Formula of Universal Law requires that one act only according to maxims that one could will to become universal laws. The test asks: could the maxim “One should refrain from taking what is not one’s own” be willed as a universal law without contradiction? If all agents appropriated what belonged to others, the stability of property rights and trust essential to social cooperation would falter, undermining the very practice the maxim seeks to regulate. A world in which theft is universal would be incoherent because “taking what is not one’s own” presupposes the existence of property and trust; if everyone engaged in theft, nothing could be legitimately stolen, and the possibility of theft would vanish. Kant’s point is that autonomy and rational agency rely on universalizable maxims that preserve the conditions for agency itself (Kant, 1785/1993, pp. 27–29; Wood, 2008, pp. 75–78). This analysis aligns with the view that a universalizable maxim must not undermine its own aim; theft, if universalized, would erode the very framework necessary for property and consent to hold (Kant, 1993; Korsgaard, 1996).

Second Formulation: the Formula of Humanity as an End in Itself commands that we treat humanity, whether in ourselves or others, always as an end and never merely as a means. The maxim “One should refrain from taking what is not one’s own” respects others’ autonomy by not instrumentalizing them for my own immediate benefit. If I steal, I treat the other as a mere means to satisfy a desire for possession, undermining their rational agency and intrinsic worth. Yet the second formulation also clarifies that even if a theft would not appear to harm a particular person, the act as a general rule still uses persons as means by creating a social habit that discounts their rights and autonomy. Under Kant’s view, a law that permits theft cannot be willed as universal if it fails to respect the rational will of others as ends in themselves (Kant, 1785/1993, pp. 38–40; Korsgaard, 1996, pp. 54–62). Scholarly interpretation emphasizes that this formulation grounds the duty to respect others’ autonomy and property by linking moral law to the categorical status of rational beings (Guyer, 2000; Darwall, 2006).

Third Formulation: the Formula of the Kingdom of Ends envisions a systematic union of rational beings as legislators in a](moral) community where all individuals are both authors and subjects of the laws they follow. The maxim must be compatible with a social order in which each person, as a rational agent, would legislate universal laws that respect the autonomy and dignity of every other person. The maxim “ refrain from taking what is not one’s own” fits within a kingdom of ends only if its universal adoption does not subtract from the liberty or ends of others; rather, it contributes to a coherent system of maxims that can be willed as part of a universal law that binds all agents as ends in themselves. If theft were accepted as universal, the kingdom of ends collapses because moral legislatures would be empty of legitimacy—the very conditions needed for mutual respect and rational autonomy would be compromised (Kant, 1785/1993; Hill, 1992). Kantian scholars argue that the third formulation synthesizes the previous two by showing how universal law and respect for persons combine to yield a principled framework for moral community (Korsgaard, 1999; Wood, 2008).

In evaluating the maxim against these three formulations, the weight of the Kantian position emerges clearly: theft fails the First Formulation’s universalizability test, because a world in which theft is universal would undermine the very practice of property that enables rational agency and social cooperation (Kant, 1785/1993; Kant, 1993). It also fails the Second Formulation’s dignity requirement since it treats others as means to satisfy personal desires rather than as ends in themselves (Kant, 1785/1993; Korsgaard, 1996). Finally, the Third Formulation’s Kingdom of Ends demands that moral laws be harmonizable with a rational community in which individuals are both lawmakers and subjects of law; a universal theft regime would fail to respect the autonomy of others and would not be coherent as a system of laws chosen by rational agents (Kant, 1785/1993; Darwall, 2006). Taken together, these considerations support the inviability of the proposed maxim as a moral principle (Kant, 1993; Wood, 2008; Korsgaard, 1996).

Scholars have argued extensively about the interpretive weight and methodological status of the Categorical Imperative. Christine Korsgaard emphasizes normativity’s groundedness in rational agency and the binding force of universalizable maxims, while Allen Wood highlights the systematic structure of Kant’s ethical framework and its emphasis on autonomy and the dignity of rational beings (Korsgaard, 1996; Wood, 2008). Pioneering analyses by Peter Guyer and Otfride Höffe broaden the historical and philosophical texture of Kantian ethics, clarifying how the formulations interact with properties such as autonomy, dignity, and social contract-like structures (Guyer, 2000; Höffe, 1993). In contemporary debate, Tom Hill and Stephen Darwall stress the social and personal dimensions of moral law, illustrating how Kant’s formulations function as checks on coercive or instrumental uses of persons (Hill, 1992; Darwall, 2006). The convergence of these sources fortifies the claim that a robust Kantian assessment of any moral maxim rests on universality, respect for persons, and the coherence of a rational moral community (Kant, 1993; Korsgaard, 1999; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2005).

In sum, the maxim “One should refrain from taking what is not one’s own” fails Kant’s three formulations as a moral principle. The First Formulation reveals a contradiction in universalizing theft, the Second Formulation exposes a failure to treat others as ends, and the Third Formulation shows that theft would disrupt a rational community of ends. The broader implication for moral theory is that Kantian ethics secures a rigorous standard for evaluating maxims—not merely by predicting outcomes, but by assessing whether the action’s guiding rule could be willed by all rational agents as a universal law, while respecting every person’s autonomy and intrinsic value (Kant, 1785/1993; Korsgaard, 1996; Wood, 2008). Limitations and criticisms—such as debates about conflict between duties and the potential rigidity of universalization—remain active, prompting ongoing engagement with contemporary interpretations and refinements of Kant’s theory (Guyer, 2000; Höffe, 1993; Darwall, 2006).

References

  1. Kant, I. (2002). Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals (A. Wood, Ed.; H. Paton, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1785)
  2. Kant, I. (1992/1993). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (H. J. Paton, Trans.). HarperCollins. (Original work published 1785)
  3. Korsgaard, C. (1996). The Sources of Normativity. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Korsgaard, C. (1999). Creating the Kingdom of Ends. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Wood, A. (2008). Kant's Ethical Thought. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Guyer, P. (2000). Kant. In P. Guyer (Ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant (pp. 96–125). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Höffe, O. (1993). Kant's Moral Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
  8. Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2005). Moral Psychology: The Cognitive Science of Morality. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  9. Darwall, S. (2006). The Second-Person Standpoint: Morality, Rights, and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  10. Guyer, P. (2000). Kant. In The Cambridge Companion to Kant (pp. 1–17). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Related Assignments