A key assumption that Kant explicitly relies on to argue for a good will and implicitly relies on to argue that suicide cannot be consistently willed to be universal law (as discussed in lecture) is:
We can never know for sure if anyone has every acted from duty.
One must be acting only from duty to the moral law for one's action to have any moral worth.
It is irrational to be immoral.
That every faculty has a proper function.
Which of the following clearly demonstrates an action that is from duty rather than merely in accord with duty?
A bystander jumps into the freezing waters of Mirror Lake to save a drowning child.
A student refuses to cheat on an exam, even though that would result in a better grade.
A person gives a substantial amount of their income to famine relief.
None of the above.
For Kant, a maxim is:
An economic principle.
A general universal principle for any purposeful action.
The same as acting from a good will.
Logical and consistent.
What is the difference between a hypothetical imperative and a categorical imperative?
A hypothetical imperative is a kind of command to action that only applies under certain circumstances relative to the agent and the agent's concerns, whereas a categorical imperative applies equally to all rational agents at all times.
A hypothetical imperative is always inoperative, whereas categorical imperatives are sometimes required of everybody under similar conditions.
None of this makes any sense.
None of the above.
Kant's two ways for testing a maxim for logical consistency (since immoral acts are always self-contradictory) are (there is more than one correct answer):
Test to see if it would be impossible for everyone to do the act. That is, could the maxim for action apply to everyone at all times?
Test to see if the outcomes would ACTUALLY be beneficial for EVERYBODY concerned. If not, then it contradicts someone's concerns and is thus immoral.
Test to see if the maxim for action disregards other peoples purposes. That is, does the maxim for action treat others as mere means for my goals, or does it also respect other people's goals? Does it treat others as 'ends in themselves'?
Test to see if others would want me to act on the maxim in question. If they do not want me to act on the maxim in question, then my so acting would be inconsistent with their desires and thus create a logical contradiction between my maxim for action and theirs.