Universalizability in the sense of impartiality (in particular, not favoring oneself) seems to be a principle which marks the moral form the immoral, rather that the moral form non-moral. But this principle too, as we have seen, is not easy to formulate.
In other words, it is the maxim of the ‘action’ and not the actor should be tested to see if it can be universalized or if it can become a general law. It follows that; a moral judgment must be universalizable. Kant defines ‘maxim’ as ‘my rule for me’ and ‘law’ as ‘universal law’.
Universalizability theory is the idea that what is right for a person must be right for any one else in the same position. In other words, one should act according to the principle of an action that can be universalized.
In addition to using different universalization conditions, universalizability tests use a variety of different satisfaction criteria. For example, consequentialists typically use criteria like "produces at least as much good as any alternative would" or "has at least as much expected value as any alternative."
The general concept or principle of moral universalizability is that moral principles, maxims, norms, facts, predicates, rules, etc., are universally true; that is, if they are true as applied to some particular case (an action, person, etc.)
The principle of universalizability is a form of a moral test that invites us to imagine a world in which any proposed action is also adopted by everyone else. Most notably, it is the foundational principle for deontological, or duty-based, ethics.
Universalizability is not a substantive moral principle but a logical feature of the moral terms: anyone who uses such terms as “right” and “ought” is logically committed to universalizability.
Kant's Principle of Universalizability states that we (morally) should: Act only if the goal of your action could be acheived in a world where everyone supported and acted on your maxim.
'Do not kill' or 'Do not break promises' or 'Do not cheat' might be examples of universalizable principles – they are judgments which everyone, it could be argued, should follow. Universal judgments or principals are, in a way then, also impartial.
To apply the principle of universalizability to a case, you therefore need to extract from the description of the case the maxim on which the person or persons in the case propose to act, or are acting.
Universalization is asking oneself whether your moral or maxim should be universal. The question is, "What if everybody did this?" For example, if a bank robber stops to think, "What if everyone robbed banks?" and comes up with that there'd be no more banks to rob.
universalization principle as follows: For a norm to be valid, the consequences and side effects that its general observance can be. expected to have for the satisfaction of the particular interests of each person affected must be. such that all affected can accept them freely.1.
The principle of universalizability demands that a moral statement that applies in one situation must apply in all other situations. Morality is both accessible and meaningful to us whether we are religious or not.
The universalizability criterion asserts to see if it is possible for the action to be universal (performed by everyone) or if it is possible for a rational agent to will (intend) that the action be universal. Moral acts can be universalized and immoral acts cannot.
The principle of humanity demands respect and dignity for people by insisting that one treats others as ends and not means. Universalizability focuses on the importance of fairness. These two conflict because you can be fair but still not respect people.
Determining what to do whether a maxim is universalizable: 1) formulate your maxim clearly- state what you intend to do and why you intend to do it.... Objection to absolute moral rules: ... Objection to the Principle of Universalizability: ... Objection the Principle of Humanity: