For the second way our maxim can fail, contradiction of the will, Kant relates to the example of helping others. Even if a maxim can be conceived of as a universal law, if it brings our will to conflict with itself, it is considered morally unacceptable. It is reasonably likely to universalize the maxim ‘not to help others in need’. Although the world certainly would not be a amiable place, Kant does not assert that an action is wrong just because, if everyone did it, the consequences would be unfavourable. He tests whether we could will a particular maxim to be universal law, not whether we’d like the results. Kant suggests that we cannot will that no one ever helps another person. For, a will, by definition, wills its ends. To truly will the ends, one must will the necessary means. Thus we cannot will the circumstances in which to make our ends unachievable. It is plausible that the only available means to our ends in some situations, requires the aid of others. Therefore, we cannot will that this possibility is withheld from us. So we cannot …show more content…
It isn’t really part of my choice that my hair is brown or perhaps even that I steal from chain stores exclusively. For Kant’s test to work, we must be honest with ourselves about what our maxims are. Truthfully, I will confess that it is a question of my taking whatever I want when I can’t afford it. However, if we assume I am a diligent salesperson who hates their job and out of luck, I win a large sum of money. I could pledge to ‘never sell anything again but only ever to purchase’. Although bizarre, this maxim does not appear to be morally wrong, but it cannot be made universal. Kant’s test make the maxim morally wrong because if there were no salespeople, how could there possibly be customers? It is impossible. Although perhaps the notion could be considered unthinkable real life, it proves that it is irrational to act in a way that not everyone