St.

Rita’s College of Balingasag

Tres Marteres, Poblacion 3, Balingasag, Misamis Oriental 9005
Senior Higschool Department S.Y 2023-2024
Email: ritarian@srcb.edu.ph Website: srcb.edu.ph

The idea of categorical imperatives was first introduced by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher from the 1700s.
He is best known for his philosophical works, Critique of Pure Reason and The Metaphysics of Morals,
among others. Kant is most famous for his ideas on a person's unconditional moral obligation, known as the
categorical imperative. One of Kant’s categorical imperatives is the universalizability principle, in which
one should "act according to that maxim and at the same time will that, that maxim becomes a universal
law.” In simple terms, it should be something that could work as a universal law for everyone without
causing contradictions or problems. In simple terms, it's about considering if what you're doing would be
okay if everyone did it.

Examining personal maxims in light of universalizability holds profound significance as it offers a pathway
to ethical decision-making and the cultivation of a just and harmonious society. This process encourages
individuals to assess whether their guiding principles could be universally applied without contradiction. By
aligning personal conduct with universally acceptable maxims, individuals contribute to the establishment of
a global moral framework. This not only promotes ethical mindfulness on an individual level but also fosters
a collective commitment to principles that transcend individual biases and cultural differences. Ultimately,
this examination plays a pivotal role in creating a world where ethical considerations guide behaviour for the
betterment of society.

In Kantian ethics, a maxim denotes the individual's underlying principle guiding a specific action, reflecting
the subjective intention behind their behaviour. Universal law, within this ethical framework, refers to the
notion that ethical principles or maxims should be universally applicable without contradiction, forming a
consistent and acceptable standard for everyone in all situations. Immanuel Kant's ethical philosophy,
known as Kantian ethics, revolves around the Categorical Imperative, which instructs individuals to act
based on maxims that could function as universal laws. This deontological approach prioritizes moral duty,
rationality, and the treatment of individuals as ends in themselves, emphasizing the creation of ethical
principles that transcend individual biases and cultural variations. The Categorical Imperative, a cornerstone
of Immanuel Kant's moral philosophy, serves as a fundamental principle guiding ethical decision-making.
The Categorical Imperative seeks to provide a rational and objective basis for morality, grounded in the idea
that ethical principles should be consistent, applicable universally, and derived from reason rather than
contingent factors.

Aligning personal actions with principles that can be universally applied holds paramount importance in
fostering ethical behaviour and contributing to a harmonious society. This alignment ensures consistency
and fairness in decision-making, as actions become grounded in principles that transcend individual biases
and cultural variations. Universally applicable principles serve as a common ethical ground, fostering a
sense of shared values and promoting understanding among diverse communities. Moreover, the importance
is found in the development of ethical mindfulness, which encourages people to think about the wider
consequences of their acts on a worldwide basis. Individuals play a critical role in the collective effort to
build a world where ethical concerns drive behavior, resulting in a more compassionate and just society.
This is achieved through coordinating personal conduct with universally accepted standards.

Consider how you can know whether a deceitful promise is consistent with duty? The shortest way to go
about finding out is also the surest. It is to ask myself, would I be content with my maxim of getting out of a
difficulty through a false promise to hold as a universal law, for myself as well as for others? That is
tantamount to asking: Could I say to myself that anyone may make a false promise when they are in a
difficulty that they can't get out of in any other way? Immediately I realize that I could will the lie but not a
universal law to lie; for such a law would result in there being no promises at all, because it would be futile
to offer stories about my future conduct to people who wouldn't believe me; or if they carelessly did believe
me and were taken in by my promise, would pay me back in my own coin. Thus my maxim would
necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law. So I don't need to be a very penetrating
thinker to bring it about that my will is morally good. Inexperienced in how the world goes, unable to
prepare for all its contingencies, I need only to ask myself, can you will that your maxim become a universal
law? If not, it must be avoided, not because of any harm it might bring to anyone, but because there couldn't
be a system of universal legislation that included it as one of its principles.

The principles underlying the maxims in the passage revolve around the application of Kantian ethics,
specifically the Categorical Imperative. The Categorical Imperative encourages individuals to evaluate the
principles guiding their actions by considering whether they could be universally applied without
contradiction. In the context of making a deceitful promise, the underlying principle is self-interest in
avoiding difficulties. The person might be motivated by a desire to escape a tough situation at any cost, even
if it means resorting to dishonesty.Reflecting on the ethical implications of the maxims presented in the
passage when applied universally brings attention to the potential consequences of widespread adoption of
deceitful promises. The guiding principle underlying the deceitful promise, driven by self-interest and the
desire to avoid difficulties, reveals ethical concerns when extended to a global scale. If everyone universally
accepted and practiced making false promises in challenging situations, the ethical fabric of trust and
reliability in human interactions would be severely compromised. Promises, which form the basis of social
contracts and communication, would lose their meaning and effectiveness. Moreover, the passage suggests
that if such a maxim became a universal law, people would retaliate against false promises, further
perpetuating a cycle of dishonesty and mistrust. This reflects the broader ethical implication that actions
driven by self-interest and deception not only harm individual relationships but also have the potential to
erode the foundations of a just and cooperative society.

Instances where maxims may conflict with the concept of universality often arise when personal principles,
driven by individual perspectives or cultural influences, clash with the idea of being applicable to everyone
without contradiction. For example, consider a cultural norm where dishonesty is deemed acceptable in
certain situations to protect social harmony. If an individual adheres to this cultural maxim, it may conflict
with the universalizability criterion proposed by the Categorical Imperative. Personal prejudices impacting
guiding principles could be another example. The universal application of a maxim based on discriminatory
beliefs, such as treating certain groups unfairly based on gender or ethnicity, would result in a world rife
with inequality and discrimination, directly contradicting the ethical ideals of universality and fairness.
These illustrations highlight how difficult it can be to match individual maxims with the idea of universality.
When acts are guided by cultural norms, self-interest, or personal convictions without taking into account
the wider ethical implications of universality, conflicts frequently result.

Universalizing personal maxims has wider implications that go beyond individual behavior and affect
ethical standards, trust, and society norms globally. Several important implications arise when people apply
the concept of universalizability to their guiding principles. First of all, the development of a common
ethical framework is facilitated by the universalization of personal maxims. Challenges may arise when
personal maxims conflict with existing cultural norms or institutional practices. Universalizing personal
maxims has far-reaching implications for individuals and society as a whole. It not only establishes a shared
ethical foundation but also encourages ethical mindfulness, contributing to a harmonious and just global
community.

For personal development and the continuous alignment of activities with universally applicable principles,
it is important to emphasize the significance of being open to learning and growth when refining maxims.
The recognition that one's ethical comprehension changes as a result of new experiences and information
emphasizes the importance of continuous self-improvement. cultivating openness to learning and growth
promotes resilience in the face of ethical challenges. It encourages individuals to view setbacks not as
failures but as opportunities for improvement. This resilience contributes to the long-term consistency and
adaptability of guiding principles, ensuring they remain relevant and effective in diverse situations. It
prevents individuals from rigidly adhering to maxims that may become outdated or incompatible with
evolving ethical standards. Instead, it encourages a fluid and responsive approach, fostering a continuous
ethical development that is receptive to the complexities of the world.

In conclusion, the philosophical exploration of harmonizing individual behaviors with universally applicable
principles highlights the significant influence of moral decision-making on the structure of society. Let us
remain firm in our resolve to match our guiding principles—which have their roots in Kantian ethics—with
the universal values of justice, fairness, and respect for all people as we work through the nuances of these
ideas. This contemplation is meant to be a call to action, asking people to live with ethical mindfulness,
evaluate their maxims on a regular basis, and have an open mind to new ideas and development. By giving
ethical concerns priority when making decisions, we not only advance our own personal growth but also
build a peaceful community where common values promote collaboration, trust, and a shared dedication to
improving humankind. Our decisions have the capacity to create a world that is fair and caring, and it is via
these decisions that we as a community lay the groundwork for a peaceful and morally upright society.