• Mojtaba
    1
    Dear all,

    I am new here and am very delighted to find the forum. I am a student of first grade of philosophy, so I need help to understand things which might be as clear as the Sun for you. Please bear with me. I was reading this text of Kant and I didn't understand it:

    "I have, for example, made it my maxim to increase my wealth by any safe means. Now I have a deposit in my hands, the owner of which has died and left no record of it... I therefore apply the maxim to the present case and ask whether it could indeed take the form of a law, and consequently whether I could through my maxim at the same time give such a law as this: that everyone may deny a deposit which no one can prove has been made. I at once become aware that such a principle, as a law, would annihilate itself since it would bring it about that there would be no deposits at all".

    Can anyone help me understand this?

    Best regards,

    Mojtaba
  • S
    11.7k
    Can anyone help me understand this?Mojtaba

    Kant is illustrating his categorical imperative by applying it to an example. It's also a reductio ad absurdum which works in his favour.

    Note how he takes something individualistic and turns it into something universal to see how it would pan out? That's the categorical imperative in a nut shell.

    A more readily understandable example along the same lines might be if you found a wallet full of money lying on the ground, thought that you could get away with picking it up and keeping it for yourself, and you were motivated to do so because you want to get your hands on as much money as possible - in fact, you made that your goal in life.

    Now consider, what if everyone thought like that?
  • tim wood
    9.3k
    "I have made it a personal rule to make make myself richer in any way I can, so long as it's safe. Somebody gave me cash for safe-keeping. Then they died. There is no paperwork. YaaY! I get to keep the money!

    "But wait a minute! When I decided to make myself richer, I supposed that my "law" could not hurt myself. But suppose everyone adopted my "law," If everyone did that then where would I be? My "law," if I apply it, would ultimately hurt me!

    "It looks like any "law" that is similarly self-destructive is just plain untenable, even crazy, and cetainly indefensible and of course irrational."

    And there you have it, an example of how Kant's categorical imperative might work. The idea being that if you make rules for yourself, you ought to see if they could at the same time be the same rule for everyone else, the test of reason. If not, then it's not a good rule. Kant uses the word "maxim" because the "rule" he's concerned with is general in form. For example: I want to convince myself it's OK to rob Smith - .I'm sure I will not get caught. But the general form of "it's OK to rob Smith" is just "It's OK for anyone to rob anyone(!)" Well, it's certainly not OK if someone robs me, therefore, it's not OK for anyone to rob anyone, and therefore, not OK for me to rob Smith.

    Kant is not an easy read. Hang in there and you will find that just as your muscles get used to new tasks, getting stronger in the process, so Kant will become easier to understand, and your general reading skills will also benefit!
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.