Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
hypothetical moral rule into a universal law. Rather, Kant is saying that simply willing
that our moral rule become a universal law produces a logical contradiction.
Let's see how. Suppose I am the person who can escape from a difficult situation by
making a promise I intend to break later on. On the one hand, it is my will that I be able
to make a promise that is believed. After all, that's what promises are for. If my promise
isn't believed, I won't be able to get out of the difficult situation I am in. But when I
universalize the moral rule, I am willing that everybody be able to break promises. If
that were a reality, then promises would not be believable, which means there would be
no such thing as a promise [17]. If there were no such thing as a promise, I would not
be able to make a promise to get myself out of a difficult situation. Trying to universalize
our proposed moral rule leads to a contradiction.
Here's another way to see why the proposed action is wrong. In order for my false
promise to be believed, I want everyone
except
myself to be truthful all the time. Because
there is a contradiction between what I wish to do and how I expect others in a similar
situation to act, I know that what I am considering doing is wrong.
If you are wondering if it is morally acceptable to do something to someone else,
reverse roles. What would you think if that person did the same thing to you? If you
cannot wish to be treated that way by another, you have evidence that your will to treat
another person that way violates the Categorical Imperative.
Kant also presents a second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, which many
people find easier to work with.
CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE (SECOND FORMULATION)
Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in
themselves, and never only as a means to an end.
To use popular terminology, the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative
says it is wrong for one person to “use” another (Figure 2.5). Instead, every interaction
with other people must respect them as rational beings.
Here is an example that illustrates how we can apply the second formulation. Sup-
pose I manage a semiconductor fabrication plant for a large corporation. The plant
manufactures integrated circuits on 8-inch wafers. I know that in one year the corpora-
tion is going to shut down the plant and move all of its production to other sites capable
of producing 12-inch wafers. In the meantime, I need new employees to work in the
clean room. Many of the best applicants are from out of state. I am afraid that if they
knew the plant was going to shut down next year, they would not want to go through the
hassle and expense of moving to this area. If that happens, I'll have to hire less qualified
local workers. Should I disclose this information to the job applicants?
According to the second formulation of the Categorical Imperative, I have an obli-
gation to inform the applicants, since I know this information is likely to influence their
decision. If I deny them this information, I am treating them as a means to an end (a
way to get wafers produced), not as ends in themselves (rational beings).
