Two things fill the mind

with ever new and

increasing wonder and
awe, the more often and
the more seriously
reflection concentrates
upon them: the starry
heaven above me and the
moral law within me.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
Kant sees two distinct but interacting realms in the universe (one of freedom, the
other of strict determinism and necessity):
(1) Free and Rational agents in society constitute the moral universe (Kant’s
‘kingdom of ends- in- themselves,’ sometimes described as a ‘commonwealth of
ends’) The kingdom or commonwealth of ends consists of a set of mutually
recognized and interdependent rational agents.
(2) Interacting matter and energy constitutes the physical universe.
Moral laws concern interactions within the kingdom of ends.
Laws of Nature concern matter/energy interactions within the physical universe.
Moral laws are unique in that they deal with how free agents should freely behave
toward one another. Moral laws prescribe for free agents, are normative, but
can be ignored by those agents.
Physical laws determine how physical objects interact, and can only be obeyed. They
have no normative significance.
Both, physical laws and moral laws are discoverable by using reason. We can derive
moral laws by asking questions as to the conditions necessary for the
maintenance of the kingdom of ends-in-themselves. Similarly, we can ‘derive’
natural laws from observation, hypothesis formation and testing.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
What are ends-in-themselves? How are these related to the simpler concept of an
‘end’? ENDS are valuable things toward which other
things are instrumental. Simple example:
relative to the desired end state of being
healthy, other things are means (diet, exercise).
Some ends are only proximate ends, others
are higher order, and do not serve further ends.
For instance, a football player values health as
a proximate end, and he exercises and sticks to
a diet in order to be able to maintain his health,
so that he may play the game. That is his
higher order end. (One can ask if his ultimate
end is really the happiness he derives from
playing football. Is there one end common to all
The Sage of
human endeavour, as Aristotle maintains, or
Konigsberg are their several common ends? Which ends
are natural or conventional? However we
decide these questions, the fact remains, that
there is this sort of hierarchy of means,
proximate ends, and higher order ends.)
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
In short, they are
Ok, got the ‘ends’ thing, but what are ends-in- persons.
themselves?

PERSONS have three features that allow

them to consciously and deliberately
consider themselves as ends, or valued
objects of ongoing concern. These features
are:
1. Rationality – (Reason allows us to recognize
and seek after general laws of nature, and
general laws of practical life, including those of
morality.)
2. We have a well-developed sense of personal
and collective history. Self-consciosness.
The Sage of
Konigsberg Additionally,
3. All persons have similar needs. We also
have wants and desires, many of which
overlap and can come into conflict, (hence
the need of laws of practical life in (1))
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
Because persons have these three features,
it is their nature to consider themselves as
What are ends-in-themselves? ongoing objects of concern.
Historical consciousness and ability to
reason give us the ability to learn from
experience, formulate and test
generalizations, not only in scientific
“theoretical” pursuits but also in practical
pursuits. Our sometimes conflicting and
sometime harmonious needs, wants and
desires generate conflicts of interest in
practical issues that elicit “practical” use
of reason.
It follows that we find ourselves having to
deliberate and formulate practical maxims
and imperatives of behavior for ourselves.
The Sage of
Konigsberg These are akin to scientific generalizations
and laws. Practical maxims and imperatives
are general rules that help us meet our
needs, wants, desires and goals. They are
formulated using reason. This is the arena
within which we find Ethics:
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
IMPERATIVES come in two varieties according
What are ends-in-themselves? to Kant:
Hypothetical (Prudential) Imperatives - Those
that require that we do (or avoid) certain
things because we have certain specific
goals in mind, we wish to satisfy particular
needs or wants. Example: I wish to remain
dry, so I should carry an umbrella when it
rains.
Categorical (Moral) Imperatives – Those that
require we do (or avoid) certain things at all
times regardless of specific needs or wants
we may have. You can think of these as
allowing space for the whole enterprise of
‘personhood’ autonomous activity in a
The Sage of social context, allowing each person to
Konigsberg exercise their full autonomy in such a way
as is consistent with an equal amount of
autonomy for all. Example: Do not lie!
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
What are ends-in-themselves? These categorical imperatives if followed by all
(or most), allow us the social space to be
what we essentially are, that is; rational
‘ends- in- ourselves’ which are at the same
time, not solipsistic individuals or atoms,
but members of a society of such entities,
cooperating for mutual benefit. We are not,
by nature solitary. (Kant agrees with
Aristotle here)
Morality is a system of categorical imperatives
for Kant, Hypothetical Imperatives for
Utilitarians. (There is some controversy
here. Mill thinks Kant is really a Rule
Utilitarian. (As we will see, there is some
The Sage of justice in this thought, despite Kant’s
Konigsberg protestations to the contrary)
Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
But, we may ask: why be concerned that others
be able to exercise their rationality in pursuit
of their life goals? Shouldn’t each of us only be
concerned with our own destiny? Why be
concerned with the whole ‘kingdom’ or
‘commonwealth’, when we can each look out
after number one? After all, can’t I free ride,
deriving the benefits of this social
cooperation, while not having to pay the price
in terms of restricting my own pursuits of
needs, wants, desires? (Plato’s Ring of Gyges
Question)
Hmm..Wha
t to say
about that?
This is a
tricky
one…
Kant and the Categorical
Imperative Kant’s Answer:
Rationality dictates that we always treat like cases similarly. Putting
aside our obviously heightened interest in self, we can see that we are
all similar in the above described ways (1, 2, and 3). Since we are all
similar in these ways, we should all be treated similarly. We all have the
same set of basic needs, the same personal or human potentials, the
same capacity to reason, and we all consider ourselves as ongoing
objects of concern. So, to disregard other persons’ ability to exercise
autonomy is arbitrary and inconsistent unless there is a compelling
reason to do so. For instance, if there are criminal violations of personal
autonomy, violators forfeit the ‘right’ to be left alone. Why? They unduly
impede others’ ability to exercise autonomy. We should take the
minimum level of action necessary against a criminal’s autonomy to
preserve the general autonomy and safety of others. For preservation of
general autonomy and the ability to socially cooperate is the additive
result of treating all persons as like cases simultaneously. And this
latter, we are obligated to do if we are to be rationally consistent.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with The
the set of rules that any person (including yourself), “Kingdom of
Ends”
as a rational agent would be able to consistently
formulation
legislate as universally binding for a society, of the
commonwealth or kingdom of rational agents or Categorical
ends-in-themselves. Imperative

So, acting from moral duty amounts to all of us deliberating and

choosing actions from this perspective, with an eye toward
maintaining and/or creating this set of conditions, this ‘space’ for the
existence of a community of fully functional, autonomous persons or
ends–in-themselves.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative The “Kingdom of
Ends”
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with
formulation of the
the set of rules that any person, as a rational agent Categorical
would be able to consistently legislate as universally Imperative
binding for a society, commonwealth or kingdom of
rational agents or ends-in-themselves.

A natural question is how we get from this very general high sounding
description of the morally correct way of life to specific real-world moral rules,
those concrete practical laws or precepts that will satisfy this condition.
Kant would say that we are now in a position to understand the other two
formulations of the Categorical Imperative: The Universalizability Formulation,
and the Principle of Ends. They each, when applied to real situations, tease out
practical implications of this very general “kingdom formulation” of the
Categorical Imperative. They can be read as related ways to discover the ‘best
set of specific rules’ referenced in the above ‘kingdom of ends’ formulation:
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can
consistently will as universal rules that all rational beings follow.

A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to
The ‘Principle
autonomous rational agents as ends-in-themselves
of Ends’
formulation

A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that
persons, as a rational agent would be able to consistently legislate as
universally binding for a society, commonwealth or kingdom of
rational agents or ends-in-themselves.
The ‘Kingdom of
You may be wondering exactly how these Ends’
formulations are different from each other. Don’t formulation of
the Categorical
worry. That’s a completely normal and justified Imperative
worry. Kant actually thought they are three ways to
say the same thing.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one
can consistently will as universal rules that all rational
beings follow.
The Basic Questions: Can I consistently will that the action I am considering
be something like a natural law that all (or most) persons follow when in
similar circumstances? Can I as one rational agent among many, legislate this
course of action, as a law that all (including me) would have to follow when in
similar circumstances? Will I be able to carry out the very thing I want to do, in
that circumstance? Will I literally be able to follow that rule, or is it self
defeating?
Notice the ‘logic flavored’ words
here:“consistently,” and “self-
defeating” (very near the same as
“self contradictory.”) All of this
tied to a notion or conception of
“all” having to do certain things.
This is Kant’s attempt to capture
Teasing out A1, we can see how it resembles A3. intuitions we have in at least
some cases that morality requires
certain things all the time, ceterus
paribus.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one
can consistently will as universal rules that all rational
beings follow.

Enough theoretical jibber-jabber! Let’s apply this to a case

very much like one Kant presents: The strange scenario of a
homeless man in Seattle..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation

This is the story of a Doppelganger. Ted is a dead ringer in looks, mannerisms, and voice, for Bill
Gates. He’s down on his luck through no fault of his own. The country is in a severe economic
downturn, and he is one of the many hapless victims. Out on the street, unable to afford
housing, he scrapes by day-to-day picking up temporary work, and relying on local charities for
food, clothing, lodging.
This day he finds himself in a particular alley. The shelters are filled to capacity. It is morning.
The alley backs a line of high-end retailers in downtown Seattle. He notes fevered activity at two
of the rear-entrances. Employees are hurriedly moving stock out into the alleyway. Suits, shoes,
cufflinks, ties, and other items. This piques his curiosity. After they move a great many things
out, they hurry back in, and he hears the distinct sound of the locks being pulled to. His curiosity
only heightens at this point, and he moves around to the front windows of the establishment.
Inside, he sees the employees all gathered around a man who looks to be very important. Ted
puts his ear to the window thankful that they cannot see him. He hears the man angrily asking
why the store’s records indicate more sales than they could have possibly made. Ted pieces
things together. This man is a big-wig in the company, and the store has been doing some
creative book-keeping. “That has to be what is going on!” he says out loud. A person walking by
gives him a quizzical look. Ted looks and says, “Don’t worry, just a crazy street person talking to
his imaginary friend. Move along now.” The lady nervously complies.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation

Now, Ted’s wheels begin to turn:

“You know. I could really right my ship with this opportunity. I know I’m a dead ringer for Bill
Gates. Now, I could go back to the alley, put together a nice Armani suit, shoes, etc.. go over to
the Y for a shave, shower and haircut, and take a trip down to the bank down the road. I know
Gates banks there. I could go in with a convincing story, and give them some line about having
left my ID back home... I could ask for a quick loan of say..50k, promising to repay, even though
I know I won’t be able to. But, I will be able to find a place to live, move if I have to, find a job. I
could really start over. This is a godsend. I have to take advantage while I can. Otherwise, I’m
doomed to this life.”
Assume here that Ted is sincere, and that he could actually right the ship, if he goes through with
his plan. Assume though, that he would not be able to repay the loan.
The question here; should he do this?

What do you think? What might a consequentialist think?

What would Kant say? Let’s see..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from
Procedure for
rules one can consistently will as universal rules that Application:
all rational beings follow.

Kant’s Procedure:
1. For each option you have: Formulate a subjective maxim for that option.
A ‘subjective maxim’(SM) is a rule intended for oneself, a kind of ‘rule of thumb’. It will
have the form:
Whenever I am in a situation with features A, B, C… I will do X.

2. Universalize each subjective maxim formulated in (1).

This is very simple: Take out any first person pronouns or nouns, replace with “anyone”
or some such phrase, adjust the rest of the sentence grammatically, and you have
generated Universal Maxims.
A ‘universal maxim’ (UM) is a rule intended for all people. It will have the form:
Whenever anyone is in a situation with features A, B, C... that person will do X.

3. For each UM: imagine a possible world where all or most people follow it, when in the
circumstances described by A, B, C…, as if it were a natural law.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from
Procedure for
rules one can consistently will as universal rules that Application:
all rational beings follow.

Procedure:
1. For each option you have: Formulate a subjective maxim for that option:
Whenever I am in dire straits and can extricate myself from those straits by
making a lying promise, I will make the lying promise.

2. Universalize each subjective maxim formulated in (1):

Whenever anyone is in dire straits and can extricate him/herself from those
straits by making a lying promise that person will make the lying promise.

3. Imagine a possible world where all or most people follow this rule, as if it were
something like a natural law.
Applying Kant’s first 3 steps to one option (Ted’s option of making a lying promise) we will see that such
an act cannot be consistently willed as a universal law or rule which all rational free agents follow, for the
very attempt at making it universal defeats its very purpose. To see that, we need to apply Kant’s first 3
steps, as is done on this slide. Then, we need to finish up, with steps 4 and 5 to fully draw out the
inconsistency..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from
Procedure for
rules one can consistently will as universal rules that Application:
all rational beings follow.

Procedure:
4. For each of these worlds ask: “Is it possible for me to carry out my intention to do X in
this world?”

5. If your answer is “No” then stage (1) has shown that the proposed universal rule is
rationally inconsistent, not possible, and you have shown that it is recommending an
action that is morally forbidden in circumstances A, B, C… Move to the stage (2) means
test just to be sure.

6. If your answer is “Yes”, the proposed universal rule is rationally consistent, and the
recommended action is morally permissible in circumstances A, B, C… Go to next step.

The steps to concentrate on here are 4 and 5. This slide presents them in their general form. The next
slide, as applied to Ted’s specific situation, and the universal maxim he is considering..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from
Procedure for
rules one can consistently will as universal rules that Application:
all rational beings follow.

Procedure:
4. Ask: “Is it possible for me to make a lying promise in this world?”

5. Your answer is “No” It is not possible, because the practice would be so common
that no bank tellers would trust others to keep their word. [Move to the stage (2) ‘means’
test just to be sure.]

This “no” shows the act is immoral, according to Kant, and is therefore forbidden.

You really can skip the next slide to get the gist of Kant’s approach to Ted’s case. But, in case you are
curious what happens if your answer to 4 is “yes,” feel free to look at the next slide. A “yes” to 4 means that
your act is morally permissible. But, you might ask, what if it is not only permissible, but required. How am
I to tell that? The next slide outlines Kant’s response to that very good question:
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from
Procedure for
rules one can consistently will as universal rules that Application:
all rational beings follow.

Procedure:
7. Given that the action is permissible, it may be the case that the act is also morally
required. How do you tell if this is the case? You reapply steps 3 – 5 in the following way.

8. Formulate a UM that keeps the circumstances A, B, C, while including the contrary of X

(not X). This UM will have the form:

Whenever anyone is in a situation with features A, B, C... that person will not do X.
Whenever anyone is in dire straights and can get out by making a lying promise,
he/she will make the lying promise (not take the honest route)

9. Imagine a world governed by this UM

10. Ask “Is it possible for me to carry out my intention to do ‘not X’ in this world?

11. If the answer is “no”, then not X is impermissible, and you must in fact do X. It is
morally required according to stage (1). Move to stage (2). If “yes”, permissible, not
required.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to The ‘Principle
autonomous rational agents as ends-in-themselves of Ends’
formulation

We have now arrived at stage 2 of

Kant’s testing procedure. It asks
us to consider whether or not our
proposed action gives due respect
to persons. We apply it to Ted’s
case again. He has already found Stage 2
his proposed action to be
impermissible, but assume he’s a
thorough guy, and he wants to
double check. He would apply this
“principle of ends” test if he were
a good Kantian.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to The ‘Principle
autonomous rational agents as ends-in-themselves of Ends’
formulation

The Basic Questions: Am I using any person merely as a

means to an end state I desire to bring about? Am I
giving insufficient consideration to him/her as a person
with his/her own life projects and goals?
Stage 2
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative The ‘Principle
of Ends’
formulation
A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to
autonomous rational agents as ends-in-themselves
Ted
Procedure:
ponders..
12. Ask: Who am I using as a means to the end I desire? Generate a list.
Clearly: the bank is being used here, and the clerk.
13. For each person on the list ask: “Does my action give a sufficient amount of respect to his/her
status as an end in him/her self?”
This really means one of two things: Does this person consent to my use? If you cannot solicit
approval you must ask: Would he/she consent if asked? Do I, or would I further that person’s goals,
life projects, interests, to a sufficient consent generating degree while using him/her for my own Stage 2
goals, life projects, or interests (or those of any other I am attempting to further by using this
person)? If I do not further this person’s goals, do I at least not seriously interfere with them in such
a way as they would object?
Clearly, neither the bank nor the teller actually consent, nor would they consent if asked. What is
more, I jeopardize their goals, and in case of the clerk his very job. That’s serious interference.
14. If you answer ‘yes’ to all of these questions, your action (X) is morally permissible.
15. If you answer ‘no’ to any of these questions, you may not proceed (X) is morally impermissible.

Well, once again, clearly, Ted has some “no” answers. So he can’t go through with his plan.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as
universal rules that all rational beings follow.

A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to autonomous rational agents
as ends-in-themselves

The ‘Principle
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that you, as a of Ends’
rational agent would be able to consistently legislate as universally binding for a society, formulation
commonwealth or kingdom of rational agents or ends-in-themselves.

Well, we’ve applied Kant’s procedures to a

case, and have some idea what Kant is on
about: Kant believes morality deals with, is
The ‘Kingdom of
essentially composed of, imperatives which Ends’
are categorical (absolute) in nature, and we formulation of
the Categorical
can derive ‘specified instances’ of them via Imperative

thought experiments or reasoning using these

three statements; A 1-3. Ok..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as
universal rules that all rational beings follow.

A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to autonomous rational agents
as ends-in-themselves
The ‘Principle
of Ends’
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that you, as a
rational agent would be able to consistently legislate as universally binding for a society, formulation
commonwealth or kingdom of rational agents or ends-in-themselves.

How does it all fair as an ethical theory?

Looking at the three formulations, let’s look The ‘Kingdom of
at the difficulties and the selling points of Ends’
formulation of
Kant’s approach, first by contrasting it with the Categorical
Imperative
the consequentialist approach:
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one
can consistently will as universal rules that all rational
beings follow.
Contrasting Kant’s approach with the consequentialist
approach.

Pro: In some cases, the view does allow us to explain or give a

theoretical backing to our discomfort with the apparent laxity that
seems to be a problem with utilitarian reasoning (remember the
Sherriff Justice case, or the organ transplant case.) In each case we can
plausibly apply A1 in such a way as to show that the proposed courses
would not even be possible in worlds governed by their respective
UMs. Also, we can apply A2 pretty straightforwardly to show that
people are being used as mere means to utility. So, by either test, they
are impermissible acts. Kant can back up our intuitions in those sorts
of cases.

Con: Be that as it may, Kant’s theory is like Utilitarianism in that in

some other test cases it does after all, apparently allow too much or
require we do things our intuitions deem immoral. A ‘for instance’:
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one
can consistently will as universal rules that all rational
beings follow.
Kant believes application of A1 will show you that it is
always impermissible to lie. So, a friend, thinking he
would trip up the sage of Konigsberg, asked him if he
would lie in this scenario: The
Fred asks you to hide in your house, because Killer at
someone wants to kill him. Moments later the killer,
Barney, is at the door, and asks if Fred is in your the Door
house. He doesn’t know.

Do you lie or tell him the truth? Kant’s answer…

 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one
can consistently will as universal rules that all rational
beings follow.

You guessed it (I wouldn’t have asked otherwise):

Kant bites his bullet. You must tell Barney the truth. E.G.,
Why? Two reasons:
The
First, if you run the scenario through the A1 decision
Killer at
procedure, you will see you cannot consistently
universalize it, because no would-be killers at doors
the Door
would believe would-be liars, in a world governed by
a ‘you can lie to would-be killers’ UM.

The second reason has more to do with A2, the

“principle of ends” formulation of the Categorical
Imperative..
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative The ‘Principle
of Ends’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as universal
rules that all rational beings follow.

A2. The right acts are those that give due consideration to
autonomous rational agents as ends-in-themselves

The
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that you, as a rational agent
would be able to consistently legislate as universally binding for a society, commonwealth or
E.G.,

Killer at
kingdom of rational agents or ends-in-themselves.

For Kant, ‘due consideration’ means you must

respect Barney’s freedom to choose to act (or not
act) on the information given to him. You cannot in
the Door
effect, make his choice for him by choosing to
withhold information. If he were a child you could
do this, but he’s an adult. So, you must give him the
information. To lie is to use him as a mere means to
your own end of saving Fred’s life. Bite that bullet.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as
universal rules that all rational beings follow.

Also, A1 has what are sometimes called ‘ambiguities of scope,’ that render it too
pliable to the wishes of people that would use it for moral justification. Depending
on what you want, you can get your desired result by narrowing scope (adding
details) or broadening scope (omitting details). Here’s an example of narrowing
scope:
Achmed the Kantian Terrorist (AKT) wishes to justify
killing American civilians (KAC). How does he do this?
Why, by fiddling with the universal maxim forbidding
murder of course (adding details):

Stage 1: Show that KAC is permissible.

[Link] the anti-murder UM in such a way that it avoids any

self-stultifying results. Here’s one:
b.“Whenever anyone wants to help God establish a caliphate and
believes he can help do so by KAC, he will.”
[Link] the world is governed by such a maxim
[Link] it possible to carry out that very act in that world?
[Link] the answer is ‘yes’, so it is permissible.
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as
universal rules that all rational beings follow.

But, you may say, Achmed cannot pass test A2! Not so fast..

Stage 2: Show that KAC is in line with A2. (this one is admittedly
a bit tricky)

[Link] I using the Americans without due consideration for their

status as autonomous rational agents? Why no, of course. The
Americans are just like Barney at the door in the killer case. We
have fully informed them of the truth of Islam, and whether or
not they choose to act on that information and convert is not our
decision, but theirs. We are leaving that up to them. Hey, Kant
allowed for capital punishment as being just desert for morally
wrong free choices right? Giving people what they deserve is
treating them as ends-in-themselves, that is, as free and
responsible agents. Right? Clearly, it is a morally wrong free
choice to prevent humans from taking their proper place in Gods
great plan. That’s what you Americans are doing. So..we kill you!
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative
The
‘Universalizability’
formulation
A1. The right acts are those acts that follow from rules one can consistently will as
universal rules that all rational beings follow.

And finally, application of A1 in such a way as to render a ‘no’ answer,

can sometimes lead to very silly results, which don’t look to have any
moral import, or at best a very tangential connection:
So, it would
I am watching the Super Bowl to end all. I know that every other
American is watching as well, in stunned disbelief, unable to pull appear to be
themselves away. Matchup: Detroit Lions vs Cleveland Browns.
Yes, they actually made it. But, I need to make a trip to the restroom morally
(a few too many celebratory beers. I’m a long suffering Lions fan).
Finally, the one and only commercial break comes. I’m a Kantian, and forbidden that
run my proposed course of action through A1. The UM is ‘whenever
anyone is in need of relief while watching a game that all other I do Flush.
Americans are watching, and the one break comes, he/she will go,
and flush.’ Now, I know that others are in a similar situation. Can I
undertake the action, in that world? (Notice here, that the world is
actual is far as I know) The answer: No. It will be impossible for me to Very silly
flush. For, if all Americans go and attempt to flush at the same time,
flushing in fact will not be possible (due to the physics of plumbing indeed.
and water systems).
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative The “Kingdom of
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that you, as a Ends”
rational agent would be able to consistently legislate as universally binding for a society, formulation of the
commonwealth or kingdom of rational agents or ends-in-themselves.
Categorical
And finally, a last worry: The kingdom of ends formulation of the Imperative
categorical imperative , if you try to cash it out, is ambiguous
between two readings, the first more absolutist, the other more
permissive of consequentialist reasoning:

Acting from moral duty amounts to all of us maintaining the set of

conditions, the ‘space’ for a community of fully functional,
autonomous persons or ends–in-themselves. Absolutist reading
Acting from moral duty amounts to all of us deliberating and choosing
actions with an eye toward attaining, creating, bringing into fuller
existence the full set of conditions, the ‘space’ for the existence of a
community of fully functional and autonomous persons or ends–in-
themselves, (and of course maintaining any acquired conditions
thereof). Permissive Reading
 Kant and the Categorical
Imperative The “Kingdom of
A3. The right acts are those that are in concert with the set of rules that you, as a Ends”
rational agent would be able to consistently legislate as universally binding for a society, formulation of the
commonwealth or kingdom of rational agents or ends-in-themselves.
Categorical
Acting from moral duty amounts to all of us maintaining the set of conditions, Imperative
the ‘space’ for a community of fully functional, autonomous persons or ends–
in-themselves. Absolutist reading

Acting from moral duty amounts to all of us deliberating and choosing actions
with an eye toward attaining, creating, bringing into fuller existence the full set
of conditions, the ‘space’ for the existence of a community of fully functional
and autonomous persons or ends–in-themselves, (and of course maintaining
any acquired conditions thereof). Permissive Reading

It doesn’t take too much thinking to see that the permissive reading would give a
justification for lying to Fred the would be killer. More generally speaking, it would allow
for consequentialist reasoning even in cases where Kant recommends we eschew it, in that
some courses of action would undoubtedly move us further along toward the goal of fully
realizing the kingdom of ends in themselves (or persons) while perhaps violating one of the
alleged categorical imperatives (as for instance “don’t lie!”). This is a problem only if you
don’t want anything to do with consequentialist reasoning. It does suggest, however, that a
hybrid of the systems (Utilitarianism and Kant) may be more appealing.