Apply the Formula of Universal Law to the maxim: 'I will lie on my resume whenever it helps me get a job.' What type of failure does universalizing this maxim reveal?
AA contradiction in will — you could conceive of universal resume-lying, but you could not rationally will a world where no one's credentials are ever trusted.
BA contradiction in conception — if everyone lied on resumes, the practice of evaluating credentials would collapse, and there would be nothing for the individual lie to gain from. The maxim defeats itself.
CNo contradiction — the universalizability test only applies to actions with direct harm to others, not prudential ones like job applications.
DA consequentialist failure — universal resume-lying would lead to misallocated workers and economic inefficiency.
This is a contradiction in conception. If it became a universal law that everyone lies on their resume, employers would stop trusting credentials entirely. The institution of credential-based hiring would collapse — and with it, the very mechanism that made individual lying effective (the presumption that most resumes are honest). The maxim is self-defeating at the logical level: universalizing it destroys its own precondition. This is not about bad consequences (that would be a consequentialist objection); it is about the maxim's logical incoherence when universalized.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
A company hires a software engineer, assigns them tasks, and pays them their contracted salary. Has the company violated the Formula of Humanity by treating the engineer as a mere means?
AYes — the company is using the engineer's labor for its own profit, which is a paradigmatic case of treating someone as a means.
BNo — the Formula of Humanity prohibits treating people as *mere* means. Using someone while also respecting their rational agency (fair pay, genuine consent, acknowledging their interests) is permissible.
CIt depends on whether the company's profits exceed a fair threshold — exploitation above that threshold constitutes treating as mere means.
DYes, because any employment relationship necessarily subordinates the employee's purposes to the employer's purposes.
Kant's formula prohibits treating humanity *merely* as a means — the word 'merely' is critical. You use people all the time: you use the engineer's skills, the cashier's services, the doctor's expertise. What is prohibited is treating them as nothing but a means — overriding their rational agency, ignoring their interests, using them without their genuine consent. A fair employment relationship involves the engineer's consent, fair compensation, and treatment as a person whose ends matter. Deception and coercion are the paradigmatic violations because they override rational agency, substituting your judgment for theirs without their agreement.
Question 3 True / False
The categorical imperative is categorical because it applies to all rational beings unconditionally — it binds regardless of what you happen to want, unlike a hypothetical imperative which only applies given a particular goal.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is the semantic core of 'categorical.' Hypothetical imperatives take the form 'if you want X, do Y' — they are binding only given a particular desire. If you don't want to be healthy, 'exercise daily' doesn't bind you. The categorical imperative binds unconditionally: 'don't lie' applies to you regardless of your desires, simply in virtue of your status as a rational agent. Kant argues this unconditional structure is what genuine moral obligations require — an obligation escapable by simply not wanting the relevant outcome is not a real moral obligation at all.
Question 4 True / False
The universalizability test asks you to imagine what would happen if everyone performed the same action and then evaluates whether the resulting consequences would be acceptable.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
This is the most common misreading of Kant. The test is not 'what consequences follow if everyone acts this way?' — that would collapse into consequentialism. The test asks whether the maxim can be universalized without logical contradiction. The failure is internal to the maxim's logic, not in the resulting outcomes. When Kant argues we cannot universalize the maxim to lie, the reason is not 'bad consequences would result' but 'the maxim defeats itself by destroying the institution of truth-telling on which its own effectiveness depends.' A maxim that produces bad consequences is a consequentialist objection; a maxim that contradicts itself when universalized is Kant's distinct objection.
Question 5 Short Answer
What is the difference between a 'contradiction in conception' and a 'contradiction in will' in Kant's universalizability test, and which is considered the stronger form of moral failure?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: A contradiction in conception occurs when universalizing a maxim makes it logically self-defeating — the maxim destroys its own precondition (as with lying, which destroys the truth-telling on which lying depends). A contradiction in will occurs when you can coherently conceive of the maxim universalized, but cannot rationally will that world as a finite rational agent (e.g., willing universal indifference to others while yourself needing help). Contradiction in conception is the stronger form — it shows the maxim is logically incoherent, not merely imprudent.
Kant uses lying for contradiction in conception: universal lying destroys the practice of truth-telling that makes individual lying possible, so the maxim literally cannot be universalized without self-destruction. He uses the duty to help others for contradiction in will: you can conceive of a world where no one helps anyone, but you cannot rationally will it, since you are a finite rational being who depends on others' assistance. Both identify impermissible maxims, but the conceptual contradiction is the clearest case — the maxim self-destructs at the logical level rather than merely at the level of rational preference.