The Tension Between Preference And Rational Norms In Moral Reflectio

In The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals,Kant says that there is only a single categorical imperative,and it is this,act only according to that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,which is also known as the formula of universal law.It is often understood as a procedure for testing the universalizability of a maxim,which,if it passes the universalizability test,it will become a moral law.There are many ways of interpreting the procedure for testing the universalizability of a maxim,but they do not provide the same interpretation of the four examples of Kant’s derivation of duty,and the test of universalizability of a maxim alone cannot guide specific moral practice.If the formula of universal law alone cannot be relied upon to make valid moral judgements about specific actions,what else do moral judgements need to rely on? And what is the nature or meaning of the formula of universal law?The derivation of the formula of universal law in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is first sorted out to show why Kant proposed the formula of universal law.Kant refutes the popular moral philosophy of his contemporaries and argues that it is necessary to establish a pure moral philosophy.A pure moral philosophy must exclude experience in the search for moral principles,which can therefore only be formal requirements,i.e.maxims conforming to the universal necessity of laws.For man,i.e.for the will of finite rational beings,moral principles are presented in the form of categorical imperatives.Next,the process of interpreting the test of universalizability in the formula of universal law is analysed to illustrate the dilemma of applying the formula of universal law.These interpretations include the logical contradiction interpretation,the teleological contradiction interpretation and the practical contradiction interpretation,and a proper interpretation of the four examples of Kant’s derivation of obligations requires a blend of all three of these interpretations.When the maxims are not restricted to Kant’s examples,some maxims will result in false positives and false negatives when tested for universality.To solve this problem,the maxim must be understood as fundamental principles of action.The universalizability test of maxims cannot thus guide concrete moral practice.The formula of universal law alone cannot determine whether specific actions are moral or not;experience is also needed.A pure moral philosophy,although it should not be based on experience,still requires experience in its application.Finally,the Volitional Self-Contradiction interpretation,recently proposed by Pauline Kleingeld,is dissected to illustrate the significance of the formula of universal law.In contrast to traditional interpretations,it is found that the Volitional SelfContradiction interpretation does not,as Kleingeld claims,determine whether a maxim is morally permissible without resorting to additional presuppositions.But the Volitional Self-Contradiction interpretation retains the intent of the formula of universal law,which requires the harmony of the two wills,i.e.that willing a maxim and willing a maxim as a universal law to be established simultaneously,and that the examination of the conformity of the maxim to the formula of universal law from the perspective of the two wills reflects moral reflection.This article argues that the formula of universal law alone cannot make moral judgements about specific actions,but also requires experience.The universalizability test in the formula of universal law is the maxim that represents the basic principle of action.The universalizability test can only judge whether a maxim can be a law,and the maxim that passes the universalizability test is a specific moral law.The formula of universal law is a meta-principle for arriving at a concrete moral law,and its significance is reflected in the moral reflection on the process of arriving at a concrete moral law,expressed in the tension between the human will being influenced by inclination and being subject to reason.the meta-principle expresses a compulsion,presented in the categorical imperative,that the concrete moral laws should exclude sensual qualities and be founded on the supremacy of reason.