Required Reading: Required Reading: Required Reading: by Immanuel Kant Watch this video introducing Kantian ethics In 500 words or more ( ), create a maxim and evaluate it via the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. Your maxim should only involve moral questions [i.e. “Stealing is always wrong”, but not “Doing jumping jacks is always wrong”]. The moral question should be general enough to apply to first principles and should involve no circumstantial qualifiers [i.e. “Stealing is always wrong”, not “If I am not hungry or chasing a bad guy or when no one is looking, stealing is always wrong”]. You may use examples, but you will still need to include a full scholarly definition of each, with commentary. You may use Wikipedia as a starting point, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a scholarly source and therefore can never be quoted in your paper. You will need to include in-text citations in your essay (last name, date, pg#) along with an APA formatted References page. You can find tools and examples of APA citation formats at the .

Immanuel Kant, a prominent figure in Western philosophy, proposed a moral theory known as Kantian ethics. This ethical framework is based on the belief that moral actions must be guided by the rational will and adhere to certain universal principles. In order to evaluate the ethical validity of a moral maxim, Kant developed the concept of the Categorical Imperative, which consists of three formulations. This essay aims to create a maxim and examine it through the lens of the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative, providing a comprehensive scholarly analysis.

Before delving into the evaluation, it is important to understand the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. The first formulation, known as the Universal Law formulation, states that one should only act in accordance with the maxim that one can will to be a universal law. In other words, an action is morally permissible only if one can imagine it being applied as a universal rule without any logical contradictions arising. If a maxim leads to contradictory results when universalized, it is morally impermissible.

The second formulation, the Formula of Humanity, asserts that one should always treat humanity, oneself and others, as an end in itself and never merely as a means. This formulation emphasizes the inherent worth of human beings and prohibits the instrumentalization or exploitation of individuals for personal gain. It requires individuals to respect the autonomy and dignity of others, recognizing their rational capacities.

The third formulation, the Kingdom of Ends, posits that one should always act as though they are a member of a Kingdom of Ends, where rational beings are both legislators and subjects. In this formulation, moral actions are guided by the idea that one should act in such a way that the principles of their actions could become universal laws in a community of rational beings. Moral principles that are valid in a community of rational beings are also valid for the individual.

Now, let us construct a maxim for evaluation: “One should always tell the truth.” This maxim is a moral question since it deals with the action of truth-telling. It is general since it does not involve any circumstantial qualifiers, such as “unless it harms someone” or “unless it benefits oneself.” To evaluate this maxim, we will apply it to each of the formulations of the Categorical Imperative.

Firstly, let us consider the Universal Law formulation. According to this formulation, an action is morally permissible only if one can conceive of it as a universal law without contradictions arising. If everyone were to always tell the truth, would a logical contradiction arise? It seems not. In a world where everyone tells the truth, trust and honesty would be foundational principles, fostering harmonious social interactions. Therefore, the maxim “One should always tell the truth” passes the test of the Universal Law formulation, as it can be successfully universalized without any logical contradictions.

Moving on to the Formula of Humanity, we must examine whether the maxim treats humanity as an end in itself or merely as a means. Telling the truth, in this case, respects the autonomy and dignity of others, as it allows individuals to make informed decisions based on accurate information. By respecting the rational capacities of others, the maxim “One should always tell the truth” aligns with the Formula of Humanity.

Finally, let us analyze this maxim using the Kingdom of Ends formulation. In a community where everyone follows the principle of always telling the truth, the moral principle underlying this maxim can be considered a valid law for rational beings. By acting in accordance with this maxim, individuals contribute to a society based on trust, honesty, and mutual respect. Thus, the maxim aligns with the Kingdom of Ends formulation.

In conclusion, the maxim “One should always tell the truth” has been evaluated through the three formulations of the Categorical Imperative. It has successfully passed the test of the Universal Law formulation without any contradictions. It also respects the autonomy and dignity of individuals, aligning with the Formula of Humanity. Additionally, in a community of rational beings, the maxim can be considered a valid principle of behavior, in accordance with the Kingdom of Ends formulation. This analysis demonstrates the ethical validity of the maxim according to Kantian ethics.