<Kant's categorical imperatives entails that one acts by the maxim that one can will into a general universal law>
Kantian philosophy outlines the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative as a method for determining morality of actions. This formula is a two part test:
First, one creates a maxim and considers whether the maxim
could be a universal law for all rational beings. The maxim is that Human Health is a priority and should be implemented at all costs. Why is it a priority? It is good and moral for Human Beings to exist otherwise there would not be a human society. We Humans Love Life, in contrast to Misanthropes and Suicide Bombers. Where does the priority come from? Practical Human Reason, otherwise Humans die before it is necessary. I know where you are coming from Wildstar: As a Misanthrope, you hate Humanity and don't want to pay. You are just selfish. I understand. Please get a Life. Second, one determines whether rational beings would will it to be a universal law. If we don't produce universal health care for all human beings where the pursuit of (healthy) life, (healthy) liberty and happiness is not a priority, then the government and its citizens are not valuing healthy life, healthy liberty and healthy human happiness completely, which is what its intention was to begin with. Once it is clear that the maxim passes both prongs of the test, there are no exceptions. The initial stage of the Universal Law Formation of the Categorical Imperative requires that a maxim be universally applicable to all rational beings: Universal Health care in the pursuit of Healthy Rational Life, Healthy Rational Liberty, and Healthy Rational Happiness. We can easily imagine a world in which humans (who don't hate Humanity like you) always answer yes truthfully to this when queried. Therefore, this maxim is logical and everyone can abide by it without causing a logical impossibility. The next logical step is to apply the second stage of the test.
The second requirement is that a rational being would will
this maxim to become a universal law. In testing this part, you must decide whether in every case, a rational being would believe that universal health care is a noble undertaking. Do you value human life, Wildstar? As a right wing conservative, I fathom you would say yes as long as you don't personally have to pay for it. So, your answer is no. First, it is clear that a healthy human being wills to live forever unless that person is a suicide bomber or hates life. An unhealthy human would only serve to represent the deterioration of human life, which is worthy of revolt from a healthy human point of view and one of the prime reasons why Universal Human Healthcare is needed. The premise, of course, is that Human Life is Good, Healthy Human life, that is. (I can define Healthy for you if you like). Therefore, even people who would consider not supporting universal health care, must concede that the correct and expected action is to tell the truth, that human life is worth spending money on, that we must revolt against DEATH at all times. |
