9.3.1 First Formulation of the Categorical Imperative: The Universal Maxim.

The first way in which Kant asks us to test whether a moral choice is from duty is to assess its universalizability, i.e. whether it would be rational to apply at all times in all situations.

…act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.

There are a couple of important terms in this formulation. A “maxim” is a subjective principle of action, or a personal rule that an individual uses to guide their behavior. Maxims reflect an individual’s reasons for acting in a certain way. Typically, a maxim can be expressed in the form: “In situation X, I will do Y for purpose Z.” For example:

• “When I need money, I will make a false promise to repay a loan.”
• “When I see someone in need, I will help them to be a good person.”

Kant uses maxims as the starting point for applying the categorical imperative.

By “universal law” Kant means that the maxim should become a duty for everyone at all times. In this sense Kant is seeking absolute moral rules that apply regardless of circumstances.

Kant sets forth a way to test whether our individual maxims might be logically considered universal laws. Here is his process:

1. 1. 1. Formulate a maxim (rule) for your proposed action.
      2. Imagine a world where everyone follows this maxim.
      3. Determine if such a world is conceivable and desirable.

For example, suppose I am considering whether I should cheat on my upcoming philosophy exam. First Kant would ask us to convert this into a Maxim:

In situation X (my upcoming exam), I will do Y (cheat), for purpose of Z (passing the class).

I would think through the issue like this:

1. 1. 1. For my upcoming exam I will cheat so that I can pass the class. (maxim)
      2. I imagine a world in which everyone cheats to pass their classes. (universalized)
      3. Such a world would not be desirable since class grades would cease to become indicative students’ abilities. (assessment)

You might think that Kant is veering away from his contention that we should not consider consequences here. And you would be wise to think this. However, the “greater good” is not what Kant is asking us to consider here. Instead, he’s asking us to consider whether a choice is fundamentally illogical.

Here Kant asks us to focus on his notion of contradiction of conception. A contradiction in conception occurs when the universalized maxim creates a logical impossibility or self-contradiction. The contradiction arises in the very conception or idea of the universalized maxim, not in its practical consequences. To this end, a better way to grasp what Kant means is to think of his process this way:

1. 1. 1. Formulate the maxim of your action.
      2. Universalize it (imagine everyone always acting on this maxim)
      3. Check if the universalized maxim is logically conceivable

Professor Ikko Oquias suggests how we might think through our cheating example:

1. 1. 1. Maxim: For my upcoming exam I will cheat so that I can pass the class.
      2. Universalized: I imagine a world in which everyone cheats to pass their classes.
      3. Contradiction: Since “cheating” is defined as “to act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage” universalizing the maxim would make it impossible to act “dishonestly” as “cheating” (as we know it) now becomes the “honest” way of taking exams. Thereby making “cheating” impossible once the rule is universalized.

Some other examples will help us grasp what Kant is aiming for here. Take making false promises, for example:

1. 1. 1. Maxim: “I will make false promises to get money when I need it.”
      2. Universalized: “Everyone will always make false promises to get money when they need it.”
      3. Contradiction: The intention behind a person making a promise is, “to believed in.” A universalized “false promise” renders all promises unbelievable (since all of them are now inherently false). Therefore, making a “supposedly believable promise” is now impossible.

Again, consider stealing:

1. 1. 1. Maxim: “I will steal others’ property when it benefits me.”
      2. Universalized: “Everyone will always steal when it benefits them.”
      3. Contradiction: What the universalized rule necessarily implies is that “All property ought to be stolen (as a benefit to the thief).” This is a self-contradictory proposition because an individual having an item (which ought to be stolen in the first place) on their person, means that they do not own it. Since they did not “own” this item, then, logically, it couldn’t be “stolen” from them. Therefore, this universalized rule creates a self-contradictory proposition, which makes it impossible to follow the rule.

Note here that the contradictions emerge from the logical structure of the maxim itself, not from undesirable consequences. The contradiction of conception helps Kant establish universal moral laws based on reason alone, without reference to outcomes or empirical considerations.