Maxim Universalizability Essay Example

The aspects of morality, ethics, justice, and fairness have been a field of compromise among many philosophers, and many theories concerning these have been formulated, and others rejected. The world of philosophy has been deeply divided into utilitarian's; those defining morality by the overall goodness of the action, consequentialists, those believing in the divine command, those linking morality to the emotions that the actions trigger and those that encompass the integrity, the golden rule and the intention of the act. Immanuel Kant established a theory of the universalizability of a maxim (Russ, 163). A maxim is a precise expression of the action and intention a person holds in executing that action.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The principle of universalizability is entirely focused on the global acceptance of an action basing on its intention rather than its consequence. Every move is attached to its maxim, the 'what and why,' and these intentions have to get aligned to the universal goals. Two different people can execute a similar action, but their intentions can make one moral and the other one immoral (Russ, 164). The universalizability of a maxim id drawn from the perspectives of looking at the world in a sense that everyone in it will be doing an action that is considered moral by its maxim, and by doing this, the doer will be able to realize their goals and objectives in life. By viewing the entire universe in action, a person cannot exempt themselves from the rules and ethics that govern others as the effects that their (doer) actions will have to others can either justify or nullify the actions. This perspective is the root of fairness, consistency, and justice in a society. According to Kant, if a person intends to do well and something goes wrong, and his actions say kills someone, that person is justifiable and moral. On the contrary, if another person commits an act and he intends to cause harm, he is instantly branded as an immoral person even if in some way his actions result in a beneficial outcome.

However, Kant took into consideration the universalizability of a maxim, but he left out its practicality. It takes more than the intention of action to make it morally acceptable or immoral. A doctor might be treating a cancer patient who is sick beyond any hope. The patient is emancipated, hairless, having a wide and deep wound on his thigh and is being fed using pipes. The doctor, empathizing with the patient injects air into his water bag tube, and he gives the last kick. The patient rests easy, out of his misery all thanks to the doctor. Going by Kant's maxim perspective, the good intention of this doctor to save the patient from his suffering justifies his action of denying the patient a chance to fight cancer either his cure or demise. This theory doesn't consider the feelings of the family, who would so much, even in his deathbed, love to see their loved one there, with the heart rate machine beeping steadily. The doctor has gone against the medical Hippocratic Oath, "first not harm." Utilitarianism, act, and rule, base morality by the consequences of the action and the societal rules. A wrong and harmful outcome or that which goes against the state rules qualifies an act to be immoral.

The action of the doctor presents the most rational response to the situation, instead of letting the patient cross down calendar dates filled with pain and agony. By narrowing down the suffering timeline for the patient, the medical bills and insurance are minimal, and space and equipment the patient was using can be occupied by someone else, who has a higher survival index and could be left out if this patient had continued occupying the facility. With the judgment that rationality amounts to morality, his action of indirect murder is considered moral. Bringing in the universalizability of the maxim, if other doctors in the world were to "kill" their patients to relieve them of their misery, this doctor would still be able to do it and achieve his goal. Therefore, this perspective shields him as a moral person (Russ, 166). However, his moral duty, to save and preserve life whatever the cost, incriminates him as an immoral person. To qualify the doctor's act as a moral one is a mockery to the cancer patients who fight through this monster, lose hair, grow it back, lose weight, regain it and finally come out as survivors. If their doctors had terminated their lives for empathetic reasons, they wouldn't live to tell of their experiences and victory.

The increase in broken homes, child neglect, and domestic violence has mainly resulted from early marriages as a result of unplanned pregnancies. One might suggest the termination of these pregnancies as a solution for the vast repercussions that are avoidable at a younger stage. Abortion is immoral, but the maxim behind it justifies it, according to Kant. A teenage girl can opt to commit this outrageous act as a result of unpreparedness or rejection from the family and the father of the baby. By doing this, she would have protected her unborn child from the same denial. Her maxim proves she has good intentions for carrying out an abortion and when she projects it to the aspect of universalizability, even if other teenage girls did it, she still will achieve her goal (Russ, 165). However, this girl denies her child the chance to live and make its own decision. It is not a guarantee that her life will end up like that of other sad single mothers living from hand to mouth with their half-naked infants. The decision to kill an innocent fetus is illegal irrespective of her intentions for doing it. Abortion is a crime, as stipulated in many, if not all state constitutions and by committing this act due to good intentions isolates this teenager from the law. She exempts herself from the laws that govern everyone, and this is unfair and inconsistent.

Conclusion

The moral perspective of every individual varies depending on the character, integrity, preferences and their willingness to put themselves in other people's shoes. Therefore, morality cannot be tied to a single definition, theory or perspective but is flexible and all-inclusive. Some of the moral theories or duties compromise with each other, and this would call for the consultation of other views on morality (Russ, 172). Other issues are emerging, and it calls for humanity to incorporate their instincts and thoughts to critically come up with the most effective moral way to go about them.

Work cited

Russ, Shafer-landau. The fundamentals of ethics: The Kantian Perspective: Fairness and Justice. 3rd Ed. Pp. 160-174