An Interpretation of Kant's Application of the 1st Formulation of the Categorical Imperative to 2 of his 4 Examples

Example 2: Borrowing on a false promise

a1: an act of borrowing money on a false promise

M(a1): When I need money and can get some by borrowing it on a false promise, then I will borrow the money and promise to repay, even though I know that I won't be able to repay.

GM(a1): Whenever anyone needs money and can get some by borrowing it on a false promise, then s/he will borrow the money and promise to repay, even though s/he knows that s/he won't be able to repay.

"He immediately sees that it could never hold as a universal law of nature and be consistent with itself; rather it must necessarily contradict itself. For the universality of a law which says that anyone who believes himself to be in need could promise what he pleased with the intention of not fulfilling it would make the promise itself and the end to be accomplished by it impossible; no one would believe what was promised to him but would only laugh at any such assertion as vain pretense."

Kant's central claim is that GM(a1) cannot be a law of nature. The following argument illustrates how this claim together with CI1 are supposed to imply that a1 is morally wrong.

1. GM(a1) cannot be a law of nature.
2. If GM(a1) cannot be a law of nature, then I cannot consistently will that GM(a1) be a law of nature.
3. Therefore, I cannot consistently will that GM(a1) be a law of nature. [1,2 MP]
4. If a1 is morally right, then I can consistently will that GM(a1) be a law of nature.
5. Therefore, it is not the case that a1 is morally right. [3,4 MT]

Does Kant succeed in showing that CI1 implies that acts done from the maxim M(a1) are morally wrong? If not, then which premise in Kant's argument is susceptible to attack? Explain.

Example 4: Charity

a2: an act of giving nothing to charity

M(a2): When I'm flourishing and others are in distress, I will give nothing to charity.

GM(a2): Whenever anyone flourishing and others are in distress, s/he will give nothing to charity.

"Now although it is possible that a universal law of nature according to that maxim could exist, it is nevertheless impossible to will that such a principle should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will which resolved this would conflict with itself, since instances can often arise in which he would need the love an sympathy of others, and in which he would have robbed himself, by such a law of nature springing from his own will, of all hope of the aid he desires."

1. If a2 is morally right, then I can consistently will that GM(a2) be a law of nature.
2. It is not the case that I can consistently will that GM(a2) be a law of nature.
3. Therefore, it's not the case that a2 is morally right. [1,2 MT]

Premise (1) is close to an instantiation of CI1. Within the quotation above lies a rationale for premise (2). Give a clear statement of Kant's rationale for premise (2). Then evaluate the rationale. Does it provide adequate support for premise (2)? Even if you believe it does, present an objection against premise (2).
 

Another Example and Some Objections

Journal Article Theft

a3: Samantha's act of stealing the journal article

M(a3): When I want a journal article and am too lazy to make a copy, I will rip it out of the journal and steal it

GM(a3): Whenever anyone wants a journal article and is too lazy to make a copy, s/he will rip it out of the journal and steal it.

How might Kant's CI1 be applied in this case? What moral status does it assign to a3? Explain in detail.

Journal Objection

a4: Samantha's act of stealing the journal article

M(a4): When I want a journal article on the philosophy of Plotinus in order to write an undergraduate philosophy paper and I am too lazy to make a copy, I will rip it out of the journal and steal it.

GM(a4): Whenever anyone wants a journal article on the philosophy of Plotinus in order to write an undergraduate philosophy paper and she is too lazy to make a copy, s/he will rip it out of the journal and steal it.

Explain the Journal Objection against CI1 in detail. Can Samantha consistently will that GM(a4) be a law of nature? If so, then what does CI1 imply about the moral status of a4 performed under maxim M(a4)? Finally, evaluate the force of the Journal objection against CI1. Is it successful? If so, why? If not, why not?

 
Stock Market Objection

a5: Lorraine's act of withdrawing all of her money from the bank

M(a5): When the Stock Market Index reaches 10,000, I will withdraw all of my money from the bank.

GM(a5): Whenever the Stock Market Index reaches 10,000, everyone will withdraw all of their money from the bank.

Explain the Stock Market Objection against CI1 in detail. Can Lorraine consistently will that GM(a5) be a law of nature? If not, then what does CI1 imply about the moral status of a5 performed under maxim M(a5)? Finally, evaluate the force of the Stock Market objection against CI1. Is it successful? If so, why? If not, why not?