Act only on that maxim thru which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law
well at least that my prof. says
The purpose of the universalizability test in ethical decision-making is to determine if an action is morally acceptable by evaluating whether it can be applied consistently to all similar situations without leading to contradictions or negative consequences.
This statement reflects the ethical principle of universalizability, which is commonly attributed to the philosopher Immanuel Kant. It suggests that actions should be evaluated based on their universal application and whether they can be consistently applied to everyone in similar situations.
According to Kant, making a false promise is considered immoral because it violates the principle of universalizability. Kant believed that if everyone made false promises, trust and communication would break down in society, leading to chaos and harm to others.
One formulation of Kant's categorical imperative is the principle of universalizability, which states that you should only act on those maxims (personal principles or motivations) that you can will to be a universal law applicable to everyone. In other words, if you wouldn't want everyone to act in the same way you're considering, then you shouldn't act that way yourself.
Kant's three principles of morality are: 1) the principle of universalizability, which states that an action must be applicable to all individuals in similar situations; 2) the principle of humanity, which requires treating individuals as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end; and 3) the principle of autonomy, which emphasizes individual rational self-governance in determining moral duties.
Kant's categorical imperative is one of many theories of moral duty. Some find it compelling because of its emphasis on rationality and universalizability, while others may prefer different approaches such as consequentialism or virtue ethics. The best expression of moral duty will vary depending on individual beliefs and values.
Kant argued that greed, or avarice, is morally wrong because it involves prioritizing self-interest over moral duties and treating others merely as means to achieve personal gain. He believed that moral actions should be guided by the principle of universalizability, meaning that one's actions should be based on principles that could be applied to everyone without contradiction.
A Kantian approach emphasizes the importance of moral duty and the principles of universalizability and respect for persons. It advocates for actions to be guided by reason and the categorical imperative, which suggests that one should act only according to maxims that could be universally applied. This framework promotes ethical consistency and accountability, encouraging individuals to treat others as ends in themselves rather than as means to an end. Ultimately, it offers a rational basis for moral decision-making that prioritizes autonomy and ethical responsibility.
It is the universal law that will comply with all people that can rationally think and make a morally correct decision that is not based upon their own desires. To not cause harm or inflict damage upon another agent ( another person). The Categorical Imperative deals with universalizability and states that an act is immoral if it cannot be made into a rule for all humankind to follow. For example, if I say "I will never keep my promises", this would be considered to be immoral because it cannot be applied to all people, for if it were, no-one would keep their promises and promises would lose all meaning.
you mean what you mean
It mean what you don't what does it mean.
Mean is the average.