Alvis-Jybran A. Alih BSCEN 2 GEC107 – J15.

Answer the following questions in 300 words.

Required:
(1) Michael Sugrue compared the categorical imperative to the golden rule. What are the
differences and similarities between the two?

Pick two:
(1) What is the categorical imperative?
(2) Give at least two examples of moral precepts that you think can pass Kant's tests.
Justify why.
(3) Explain the principle of "Equal Consideration of Interests".
(4) Explain what is Speciesism.
Required:
(1) Michael Sugrue compared the categorical imperative to the golden rule. What are the
differences and similarities between the two?

If we look deeper to the sayings of the golden rule which according to bible states
“Do unto others as you would have them unto you” and the first of Kant’s formulation
which states that “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it
becomes a universal law”, although both says that we should not do what we do not
others do to us and it applies to everyone, for the golden rule, it adds the statement “you”
which gives it a more personal direction than categorical imperative. Also, for the
categorical imperative, it can directly mean that we should do what everyone would do as
compare to the golden rule that expects someone not to do those actions. Another thing is
that, Kant’s second formulation which states “act to use humanity always at the same
time as an end, never simply as means”, consider a situation wherein there is an accident
that involves a family, a father, a mother, and a 1-year-old male child where all except
the 1-year-old child, died. The problem there is, would you tell that 1-year-old child that
his parents died from that accident or spare him from the trauma he would get from that
accident. In accordance to Kant’s second formulation, you should tell the child the truth
as he has that right to know what happened to his parents while the golden rule instead
exhorts us to be treated the way we want to be treated therefore, if it causes a trauma for
that child, would we want to be treated by that if we were in his position as well? For me,
no, because it is still a child who is only a 1-year-old and that experiences should not be
felt by a kid his age.
Pick two:

(1) What is the categorical imperative?

The categorical imperative is an unconditional or absolute norm of behavior for

all actors, whose validity or claim is independent of any desire or end. It tells us to do
things whether we like to or not, and if we ignore or disobey it, we are acting irrationally.
All moral obligations are categorical imperatives, according to Kant. Because we are
logical beings, they apply to us as well. Even if we don't want to, and even if moral
obedience brings us nothing we care about, we must obey them. The essential norms of
morality do not depend on our wishes. Moral principles would not apply to everyone if
they did, because people's desires varied. This would make morality too fluid, allowing
people to evade their moral responsibilities simply by changing their minds. In line with
this, Kant made three formulations that if it passed all 3 criteria then we can call it
categorical imperative. These are;

a. Universalize your maxims – “act only on that maxim whereby you can
at the same time will that it becomes a universal law.” It means that we as people
are not allowed to do things that we do not want others to do as well.

b. Treat persons as an Ends – “act to use humanity always at the same

time as an end, never simply as means.” It means that we should never use people
for our own advantage, it is morally impermissible if we did.

c. Treat people as part of the Kingdom of Ends – “act as if you were

always through your maxim a law-making member in a universal kingdom of
ends.” It means that we should never use people the way we want without
thinking the welfare of that person, we should consider that person as well
thinking of their well-being.
(2) Explain what is Speciesism.

Speciesism is like racism and sexism version for species specifically non-
human animals. It is a kind of belief wherein one is biased towards the other species.
Treating that species is more important or less important than the other one. Wherein
one refrain from doing this to that species while it is acceptable doing it to the other.
It’s like saying that one is worthless while the other is not and in this kind of belief,
that is justifiable. As a human being bound by natural moral law, I, as one, accept this
kind of belief since, as a Muslim, I am prohibited from eating haram foods such as
pork but permitted to eat halal meals such as fish and chicken, and this is justifiable to
me. Another example of this type of belief is that some individuals who eat chickens,
cows, and goats but not cats and dogs are irritated by Chinese people, who eat a range
of non-human animals including dogs and cats in addition to chickens, cows, and
goats. For those folks, eating cats and dogs is improper because they are our pets that
we keep in our homes and enjoy, but eating chickens, cows, and goats is acceptable
because they are livestock and poultry intended for human use. No one would dare to
think that their pets, such as cats and dogs, would be handled in the same way that
poultry and livestock are treated in the food industry if they had this perspective. One
would not imagine what would happen if their pets went through the same pain, fear,
and sadness that poultry and livestock went through. They would never consider it,
feeling that the lives of their pets are more important than the lives of poultry and
livestock, whose sole function is to feed them.