Amanda Cushen

Reading Questions #3
1. Explain the difference between, on the one hand, the What if everyone did that? rule
and the golden rule, and, on the other, the principle of universalizability.
Kant discusses the idea of unfairness and breaking the rules equaling wrongness.
Inconsistency comes into effect when people use their own set of rules yet insist that other
people follow another set of harsher guidelines. Consistency is important. The question What if
everyone did that? highlights the importance of having consistent rules and following them as to
not act immorally. The question really claims that if disastrous results would occur if everyone
did X, then X is immoral (Shafer-Landau 160). This test is not only extremely inconsistent but
it also does not identify which acts are immoral. The golden rule tests inconsistency through
questioning How would you like it if I did that to you? (Shafer-Landau 161). The golden rule,
sometimes described as stepping into someone elses shoes, does not reliably work. The golden
rule makes morality depend on a persons desires. Both of these rules work some of the time, but
not all of the time, therefore there is limited applicability. The principle of universalizability
claims that an act is moral if the maxim behind the act is universal. This creates a firmer ground
for morality. Neither of these maxims are universal therefore do not conform to the principle of
universalizability.
2. What does Kant mean when he claims that the inability to universalize a maxim is due to
contradiction?
Universalizability depends on whether the goal of a maxim can be achieved in a world
where everyone supports and acts on the maxim. One must question what if everyone did that?
and if this test fails then the maxim is not universal. People allow themselves to make exceptions
for themselves by acting on their own maxims that fail this test. Therefore the maxims are not
universal. Kant claims that if we act on a maxim that cannot be universalized, we are
contradicting ourselves.
3. Both expressivism and Kant reject the view that one can be an amoralist, but for very
different reasons. Explain this difference.
Kant thinks that all moral duties are categorical imperatives. The categorical imperative
includes rational requirement that do not depend on what we care about but instead states that the
requirements of reason apply to everyone who possesses reason. It commands us to act whether
we want to or do not want to and if we ignore or disobey them then we are acting contrary to
reason. Kant rejects the amoralist because he thinks that everyone who can reason must obey its
commands, it is universal therefore cannot be not cared about. Desires dont matter or whether
you care or not doesnt matter since it is a universal categorical imperative. Emotions or feelings
are not in our control according to Kant but intentions are in our control and whether it is good or
bad it is in our control. Intentions in our control through reason. Kant says that reason is the
strongest motivator.

Expressivists reject the amoralist. Expressivism denies the objectivity of morality and
relies on the idea that we are venting our emotions through moral beliefs. Amoralists do not care
about morality and reject feeling so to the expressivist, amoralists do not exist.