Reflection Prompt

Applying the Categorical Imperative

Testing Kant on a concrete case of your choosing

Kant gives us a remarkable tool: a procedure for evaluating any proposed action by asking whether we could will the principle behind it as a universal law, or whether the action would treat someone merely as a means. The tool is only as good as its application, though. This reflection asks you to try the tool on a case you actually care about.

The prompt

Step one: Pick a formulation of the categorical imperative. Use either the Universalization formulation ("Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law") or the Humanity formulation ("Treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means, but always at the same time as an end"). You only need to pick one.

Step two: Pick a concrete action or case. Something specific enough to analyze. Examples: lying to a sick friend to spare them bad news, breaking a promise to attend a family event to help a stranger, downloading copyrighted content for personal use, refusing to lend money to a relative, buying goods known to involve exploitative labor. The case can come from your own life, from current events, or from a scenario you construct. It must be specific, not generic.

Step three: In your reflection, do the following:

  1. State the action clearly and state the maxim behind it in general terms.
  2. Apply your chosen formulation step by step. If you chose the Universalization formulation, imagine the maxim as a universal law and explain whether and why it produces a contradiction. If you chose the Humanity formulation, identify whether and how the action treats someone merely as a means.
  3. State what Kant's framework would conclude about the action.
  4. Raise and briefly address one challenge to your conclusion. Does the case depend on how the maxim is stated? Is there a way of formulating the maxim that would produce a different result? Would Kant's framework rule out an action that seems morally permissible, or permit one that seems wrong?

On stating the maxim

The most common mistake in applying the Universalization test is stating the maxim too narrowly or too broadly. Too narrow: "I will tell a lie about being sick on November 4 to get out of this particular exam." This is a description of one action, not a maxim. Too broad: "I will pursue my own interests." This is not really a maxim either; it is a statement of self-interest in general. The maxim should state the principle that actually guides the action, at a level general enough to be a principle but specific enough to be evaluated. "I will lie when telling the truth would cause me discomfort" is a usable maxim. Think carefully about how to state your maxim before you apply the test.

Your Reflection

This is a thinking space — your response is not saved or submitted. Copy your work if you want to keep it.