Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a two part test, a method to determine the morality of an action. Initially a maxim is created, it is then considered whether this maxim can possibly be a universal law, applicable to all rational beings. This is arguably the most important part of the categorical imperative. Secondly, it is determined whether this maxim would be willed by rational beings to be a universal law. If the maxim passes both parts of this test it is, without exception, a moral action. For example: if you are a paramedic, faced with a saddened and confused widow who is asking whether her late husband suffered in his accidental death, you have to determine the maxim and, based on the test, determine which action to perform (to lie or not to lie). Let us determine a maxim to be "when answering a widow's inquiry as to the nature and duration of her late husband's suffering, one should always tell the truth regarding this" (let's name this maxim, M1). If it passes both parts of the test then, according to Kant M1 is a moral action. This view is not shared by Utilitarians.

rsal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative's first part states that a maxim has to be applicable to all rational beings, universally. This M1 succeeds in passing. It is not hard to imagine a world in which paramedics are truthful when questioned by widows. A logical impossibility is not created as all can abide by this maxim bringing us to the logical next step, the second part of the test.

However, what if telling the widow the truth, brings her to the point where she commits suicide? Would telling her the truth still be considered the moral response if the consequence is this? If it were known that telling the truth to the widow were going to drive her to suicide, then no rational being would want this maxim to become a universal law. The following is true; the suicide does not define whether telling the truth is moral or not. It is impossible to say whether the news would drive the widow to commit suicide. Although a definite possibility, there is a great number of alternate choices she could make and it is impossible to predict and judge them all. When deciding whether a rational being would will a maxim to be a universal law, the maxim itself should be considered rationally, not its consequences. So, the maxim would pass the second test.

The defenders of utilitarianism argue that this line of thinking carries the universality in the fact that it considers the greatest happiness of all beings, instead of just individual happiness, but, this morality is often based on highly unpredictable and changing consequences. A not all-too-realistic view when trying to make a moral judgement on all of the possible outcomes of an individual action.

Morality based on Kantian principles is strict application of moral conduct. A constant changing of views whether an action is moral or not can not be observed. An action is a universal law and moral not because of its consequences, but because any rational being wills it to be

Some common words found in the essay are:
Categorical Imperative, Categorical Imperative's, universal law, Kant M1, telling truth, Universal Law, Reaction Kantian, moral action, categorical imperative, pass test, Law Formation, Formation Categorical, universal law formation, lie lie, morality based, law formation, passes test, formation categorical, maxim universal law, law formation categorical, universal law maxim, telling truth moral,
Approximate Word count = 1307
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)