the question

In the example of the lying-promise, explain what Kant means in saying that lying-promises cannot be made to be universal law.

the student responses

i believe Kant’s example of the lying-promise is suggesting that a principle rooted in an unethical concept may not be widely accepted as rationale for governing and guiding expected behavior globally. In order for an expected behavior to be universally accepted according to a specific principle, the principle would have to be accepted universally as being ethical and reasonable. According to Kant’s explanation in the example of the lying-promise, this cannot be a universal law because it would require individuals to lie and others would not reasonably accept a promise to make payment when genuine trust could not be established. Kant uses the principle of “Categorical Imperative” as a way to determine whether a deed is ethically allowable. This principle allows individuals to examine if one would be willing for the rule to be followed by everyone all the time. If so then, anyone in need of money would lie to get what they need and that would be a “universal law.” However, if this became a common practice then there would be no one lending money because there would be no reasonable expectation of repayment. So, there would be no one to make the loan and it would be impossible for a person to get a loan. Generally speaking, most people understand that lying is typically immoral and unethical. Therefore, to make the lying-promise a universal law would require lying to be morally and ethically acceptable.