Immanuel Kant's Universal Law Test: A Form Of Consequentialism

In this paper, I will argue that Immanuel Kant’s universal law test is a form of consequentialism. I will begin by explaining Kant’s formulation of his Categorical Imperative, and the moral theories on which it relies. Next, I will introduce John Stuart Mill’s criticism of Kant’s moral theory, and explain why I believe that he is correct in claiming that Kant’s arguments ultimately rely on utilitarian principles.

In his book Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant argues that “There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all… which can be regarded as good without qualifications, except a good will” (7). He explains that any other quality, even those usually considered virtuous, can be applied to either malevolent or benevolent

In answering, he makes a distinction between prudence and duty, saying that although it may be prudent to make a false promise because of the tangible benefit it provides to the person making the promise, it is not in accordance with duty. Kant details how a universal law of this nature would conflict with the Categorical Imperative by saying that “I immediately become aware that I can indeed will the lie but can not at all will a universal law to lie. For by such a law there would really be no promises at all… Therefore, my maxim would necessarily destroy itself…”(15). Again, Kant’s theory seems to be distinct from utilitarianism because it concerns the logical possibility of a maxim being made universal, rather than the outcome of an

Mill writes that “… when he begins to deduce from this precept [the universal law test] any of the actual duties on morality, he fails … to show that there would be any contradiction, any logical impossibility, in the adoption by all rational beings of the most outrageously immoral rules of conduct” ( Troyer 97). In defending his own moral theory, Mill gives a similar example to Kant’s, explaining how the principle of utility does not justify lying. Mill writes that “… it would often be expedient … to tell a lie. But inasmuch as the cultivation in ourselves of a sensitive feeling on the subject of veracity is one of the most useful… and inasmuch as any, even unintentional, deviation from truth does that much toward weakening the trustworthiness of human assertion… [a person who lies] acts as one of their own worst enemies” (Troyer 112). Mill’s rejection of lying as right course of action is based on the negative consequences it