What is the moral theory of being universaliziable?

Answer 1

Superficially: Moral theory has traditionally been metaphysical theory, where it transcends the here-and-now into a realm of thought, or a priori categories. This non-physical realm is not obstructed by borders and boundaries and is, therefore, universal. This position is a popular enlightenment conception of universalised moral theory, and is often arributed in large part to Kant (see Metaphysics of Morals). Such a theory has not been without criticism, however. In the years following Kant, Hegel's dialectical conception of the teleological development of history asserted that while there may be an ultimate metaphysical monism (such as a God, or the Absolute Idea, similar to Plato's Forms), that ethics and morals are necessarily bound to the earth, and 'concrete' in practice. This assertion that morals have physical manifestations which are inextricable from abstract and metaphysical suggests that morals may not be the same everywhere or at the same time (morality of contemporary Prussia different to ancient Greece), limiting the objective, universal nature of moral theory laid down by Kant. John Rawls kick started the rebirth of Political Theory with 'A Theory of Justice' in 1971, which pushed for justice linked closely to much of the work of Kant with subsequent metaphysical justifications. In a later text (Political Liberalism), Rawls, in many ways, tries to 'remove the metaphysics' from his earlier theory of justice relying upon a principle of 'overlapping consensus' which reasonable people would agree to. Such a concession raises the question of what would reasonable people agree to? Are reasonable people (and this is reasonable morally as much as rationally etc.) universal? Is moral theory, therefore, universal? Many multiculturalists, with many links to Hegel's 'grounded' conception of morality in reality argue that morality is as much a product of one's up bringing and the culture in which they interact. This precludes universal moral pronouncements (which are common in Western political thought). These questions need to be answered for a moral theory to be considered universal (although, many consider multiculturalism frivolous). A contemporary example of an attempt to universalise moral theory following the rejection of metaphysics by Rawls and as a critique of Multiculturalism can be found by Brian Barry. In Culture and Equality, Barry rejects the particular moral claims of different individual groups based upon the varying conceptions of morality. He argues that moral claims must conform at least to liberal moral principles, although the universal nature of these liberal principles are not fully elucidated. In 2004 (Why Social Justice Matters, Ch. 3), Barry, influenced by Rawls, argues for universal moral imperatives predicated upon the international framework of rights and the UN. Clearly, moral imperatives are not linked to metaphysics here, but instead actual institutional constructs. Although, the success of his argument is certainly debatable. Ultimately, these are two approaches to the universalisation of moral principles based upon metaphysics and international institutions, and two critiques through Hegel and Multiculturalism. Further reading upon foundationalism may well be fruitful for further research on the topic.

Answer 2

The moral theory of universalizability, also known as universalizability principle, states that an action is morally acceptable if and only if its maxim (underlying principle) can be consistently applied by everyone in similar situations. In other words, an action is considered morally right if we can conceive of a world where everyone acts in the same way without contradiction or negative consequences. This principle is often associated with the philosopher Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative.