Terms in this set (47)

The formula of universal law: only act in accordance with a maxim if you can at the same time will it as universal.
A maxim is a ground rule or subjective principle of action; in that sense, a maxim is a thought that can motivate individuals
in other words, it is an underlying, general rule to which we appeal when we perform actions. Furthermore, Kant's theory requires that it be subjective; that is, "it is the principle of a particular subject or agent" This means that a maxim does not hold objectively, as a law of nature would, but is determined by reason "in accordance with the conditions of the subject" that is acting on it.
The categorical imperative on this formulation cannot prohibit lying to escape embarrassment because you cannot make this a universal law. You will not be able to keep everyone in the world from lying because it cannot be regulated.
This would not allow anyone including yourself and others to lie to escape embarrassment. You cannot be the exception. It commands that every maxim you act on, that you are willing to allow everyone else to act in a similar situation. For example, if I wanted to lie everytime to escape embarrassment, I would have to be willing to make it so that everyone always lies to escape embarrassment- but if this were to happen, no one would ever believe you and you would never believe them therefore your lie would not prevent you from escaping embarrassment. So by willing that such a maxim (of lying to prevent embarrassment) to become a universal law, it would thwart your goal- thus it is impermissible to lie, according to the categorical imperative. It is impermissible because the only way to lie is to make an exception for yourself.
john the fireman: what would Kant say, and what would you say.
Kant: if john is doing it out of benevolent inclination, it does not have moral worth.
Act only has moral worth if you do it for respect of the moral law.
His act doesn't have moral worth, doing things out of duty has more worth than benevolent inclination.
We are our rational selves.
It wasn't up to him, he just got lucky for being happy.
Praise the guy with duty because he is doing it for good will. And does have moral worth and praise.
You: miserable wretch. Kant needs to allow for someone moral worth, even if they do it by benevolent inclination as long as they have respect for the moral law.
It would be crazy to
A lot of people know what to do the right thing. Some people do the right thing, others still don't do the right thing.
Kant: formula of humanity, treat your humanity higher than others.
Treating others humanity as a mere means, to increase your happiness.
Treat them as a mere means to your own happiness.
Who should we praise more? If john number 2 more, then agree with kant. But why? Kant says, because he is struggling with this, but it's also because he's using his humanity (that has unconditional intrinsic value); only blame people for what they have control over (it wasn't up to john 1 that he woke up happy), only get praised for things that are under your control.
Epistemological: it is possible, but we can't know it. You seem to be doing it for the right reasons, but you actually get pleasure from it.
your own answer. And argue for it.
Step 1: the ultimate question.
Yes, he exposed. Was it a violation of our right to privacy? The case of us using google, are we waiving our right to privacy? Listening to phone calls is violation. Make distinguishings.
Yes, unjust and immoral. And look up an example. Do arguments by analogy: shouting coupling waves right to privacy to person outside. But if they record it, is that a violation?
Yes, violated. But it's justified for competing right to security. Violated right to privacry but outweight by the right of security.
Step 2: does it fit criteria for civil disobedience? Is it justified?
Civil Disobidience (acc to brownlee): Moral motive, intention to communication, publicity, non-violence, accepting consequence/punishment, illegality
Justifying it:
- proportionality
- necessity
- prospect of success
- motive
step 3:
SEP on Civil Disobdience in reader
NOT CIVIL disobedience becuse if they break a law must accept that they may be arrested and have a duty to submit to punishment.
NOT A whistle-blower is one who reveals to the public wrongdoing, corruption or illegal behavior committed by those in authority, but who also cooperates with investigators as they work to ascertain the veracity of those allegations. Snowden had a chance to properly blow the whistle. He could have reported serious problems associated with the National Security Agency program to Congress under a process established by the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act. The law would have provided Snowden legal protections and given Congress an opportunity to properly investigate the matter without jeopardizing national security.