II. Kant
      A. Themes of Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
            1. Internalism
            2. The Good Will and its distinctive goodness
            3. Duty, Inclination, and Moral Worth
                  a. actions from duty vs. actions from inclination
            4. Universalizability
            5. Rationality
            6. Respect for Humanity

      B. The Categorical Imperative

KCI:  An act is morally right if and only if the agent of the act can consistently will that anyone in the same situation act on the same maxim.

            1. Maxims

the maxim of an act is the general principle, or general policy, that the agent is acting on; the maxim constitutes the agent's reasons for acting; it states what the agent of the act takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it.

Maxims are of this form:

Whenever                                                          , I will                                               .
                    <enter circumstances here>                    <enter act type here>

Kant thinks that every time we act, we act on some such maxim.

Externally similar actions may in fact have radically different maxims (as the Mr. Grimbly - Mr. Hughes case shows).

 

            2. Consistent Willing

                  a. Two Ways to Will Inconsistently

There are two ways in which a person can will inconsistently: (i) they will something that is incompatible with something else they will, or (ii) they will something that simply cannot happen -- an impossible state of affairs.

            3. How to Evaluate Actions according to KCI

1. Determine what the maxim of the act is.
2. Check to see if the agent's willing that everyone act on this maxim when in the same situation either:
        (a) conflicts with something else he wills, or
        (b) is to will an impossible state of affairs.
- If either (a) or (b) is true, then the agent cannot consistently will that everyone adopt this maxim, and hence KCI says that act is wrong.
- If neither (a) nor (b) is true, then he can consistently will that everyone adopt this maxim, and hence KCI says that act is morally ok.

      C. Examples of Applications of KCI

                  a. The Anthrax Tax Case

Suppose there is a national emergency and everyone has to chip in. Let's say each person has to pay a small tax so as to pay for large amounts of anthrax vaccine. Obviously, everyone should pay because it will have good results. But suppose one person says to himself, "to hell with the anthrax tax. Since all the others are paying, my money won't be missed. I'll keep it for myself and buy some CDs." This guy recognizes the importance of the general practice of paying the tax. He also sees that there is no relevant difference between himself and the others. Yet he makes an exception for himself. He allows himself to pay no taxes, though he knows it would be terrible if everyone else did as he proposes to do.

Let's evaluate the following action:

a2:     This guy's not paying the Anthrax case and instead using the money to buy CD's.

Step 1. Determine what the maxim of the act is:

The Maxim of a2:     Whenever I can get away with not paying a national emergency tax and use the money to buy something for me, I will do it.

Step 2. Check to see if the agent's willing that everyone act on this maxim when in the same situation either:
        (a) conflicts with something else he wills, or
        (b) is to will an impossible state of affairs.

Let's consider (a) first. Is willing that everyone follow this maxim in conflict with anything else he wills? Well, if everyone adopted this maxim, there wouldn't be enough Anthrax vaccine. But, in our example, we stipulated that the agent recognized the importance of the tax and the importance of there being enough Anthrax vaccine. Thus, since he wants there to be enough vaccine, he actually wills that people do not all follow the maxim he is using. Therefore, he cannot consistently will that everyone follow this maxim -- to do so is to will something incompatible with something else he wills.

KCI says that if an act that is such that the agent cannot consistently will that everyone follow its maxim, then the act is wrong.  Therefore, since the guy in this case cannot consistently will that everyone follow the maxim of his act of not paying the tax, KCI says that that act is morally wrong.

                  b. Miss Perkins

This is an example Feldman discusses in Ch. 7. Suppose I have a student -- let's call her Miss Perkins, as Feldman does. Here are the facts of the case: Miss Perkins has to write a paper for ethics class. She'd much rather go out with her friends than write the paper. So she decides to buy a paper off the internet.  Unlike the guy in the anthrax tax case, Miss Perkins really doesn't care if others act in the same way she is acting when in the same situation. 

Here is the act we'd like to evaluate:

a3: Miss Perkins' act of buying a paper off the internet and turning it in as her own

Here is her maxim:

The Maxim of a3: If I have a paper to write for class, but I'd rather go out with my friends instead of writing it, then I will buy a paper off the internet and turn that in.

Again following the guidelines above, let's check to see if the agent's willing that everyone act on this maxim when in the same situation either:
        (a) conflicts with something else he wills, or
        (b) is to will an impossible state of affairs.

From what was said in the details of the case, we can see that (a) doesn't hold -- Miss Perkins doesn't will something that is in conflict with her willing that everyone adopt her maxim.  She does not will that no one else adopt her maxim. It's ok with her if everyone cheats.  

Now let's consider whether (b) holds.  Consider what would happen if everyone were to behave as Miss Perkins intends to behave, and every lazy student who didn't want to do their work were to buy papers off the internet. Soon tons of papers turned in would be bought off the internet. Professors would decide to change the rules. Students would be required, say, to take oral exams. Thus, it would soon be impossible for lazy students to turn in papers they bought off the internet (since they wouldn't get assigned papers anymore). Thus, it is impossible for there to be a system of nature in which all lazy students turn in papers bought off of the internet. Because on the one hand, they would turn in papers bought off the internet, but on the other hand they would turn in no papers, since none would be assigned. This is a contradiction -- an impossible state of affairs. Thus, it cannot be consistently willed.

KCI says that if an act that is such that the agent cannot consistently will that everyone follow its maxim, then the act is wrong.  Therefore, since Miss Perkins cannot consistently will that everyone follow the maxim of her act a3, KCI says that this act is morally wrong.

      D. An Argument against KCI

                  a. Miss Perkins again

We're imagining a new case, though it is a lot like the last one. It involves Miss Perkins and the same action. We'll give the action a new name, however, since it is a new case:

a4: Miss Perkins' act of buying a paper off the internet and turning it in as her own

What's different about this case is the maxim Miss Perkins decides to act on. Maybe she is a Kantian and she knows that if she were to adopt a maxim like The Maxim of a3 then she wouldn't be able to consistently will that everyone act on it, and so it would be wrong. So she adopts a different maxim:

The Maxim of a4: If I have a paper to write for class, but I'd rather go out with my friends instead of writing, and it is extremely unlikely that I will get caught, then I will buy a paper off the internet and turn that in.

The Maxim of a4 differs from The Maxim of a3 in only one respect: The Maxim of a4 contains an extra phrase about how the likelihood of getting caught. But this little addition makes a big difference to KCI's evaluation of the act (a4). We found in the original case that Miss Perkins could not consistently will that everyone should behave as she plans to behave. If she were to will in that way, she would, indirectly, will that the system be changed.  But she already willed that the system remain as it is.  However, this doesn't apply to The Maxim of a4. For it appears that if everyone covered by The Maxim of a4 were to act as Miss Perkins plans to act, no change to the system would occur.  Only a few students would get caught every once in a while, so professors wouldn't change the system. So it would be possible for everyone to act on this maxim whenever they were in this situation. Apparently, then, Miss Perkins can consistently will that they all do so. Hence, according to KCI, her act of buying a paper off the internet and turning it in as her own, if performed under The Maxim of a4 rather than under The Maxim of a3, would be morally acceptable. This seems wrong. And at the very least, it doesn't seem that the normative status of the act can change just by Miss Perkins changing her maxim in this way.

So here is the argument:

Argument against KCI
   1. If KCI is true, then the normative status of a3 is different from the normative status of a4.
   2. It's not the case that the normative status of a3 is different from the normative status of a4.
   3. Therefore, it's not the case that KCI is true.

Rationales
P1: The reason KCI implies that a3 has a different normative status than a4 is that KCI implies that a4 is morally ok and that a3 is wrong. It implies this because Miss Perkins cannot consistently will the maxim she used for a3. She would be willing an impossible state of affairs if she were to will a3. But she can will that everyone act on the maxim of a4, since that maxim contained an important extra phrase.

P2: But it seems incorrect to say that these acts don't have the same status. The acts are identical. They are both cases of stealing papers off the internet, and this is wrong. Indeed, Miss Perkins is still making an exception for herself, so Kant himself, who always thinks this is wrong, should agree.

Evaluation
I think this argument is sound.  But if Kant were here, he might say this: "This argument is unsound, because premise 1 is false.  In both cases, both actions (a3 and a4) are wrong.  The reason each is wrong is that it would actually not be ok with Miss Perkins if everyone adopted either of her maxims.  (So clause (a) of the guidelines would apply.)  The fact that Miss Perkins participates in the university system shows that she takes it seriously and would not want everyone to act in a way inconsistent with the rules of the university.  So she would not want anyone else to act on either of her maxims.  KCI thus implies that both of her actions, no matter which maxim she uses, are wrong."

So Kant is saying that the case of Miss Perkins is impossible as we have described it -- anyone who participated in the university system would have to will that people don't act on the maxims she acts on.  I leave it to you to decide whether Kant's response to this argument is adequate.