Explanation of the Principles of Universalisability
The principle of universalizability is a moral test inviting the world into the thoughts about the outcomes of actions if they are adopted by everyone else ( Hopwood, 2017) . The notable foundational principle of universalizability is deontological ethics, where it tests the morals of actions taken. For instance, if the world considered donating to charity, then what would be the nature of a world where everyone makes the same choice? The first principle of universalizability is the principle of imperatives for action ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . It is imperative that comprehension of morality requires a more precise philosophical judgment.
According to this principle, only rational human beings act consciously in accordance with the law even though everything is naturally required to do so. The human agents are born with subjective impulses or inclinations that may work in contradiction with the dictates of reason ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . This implies that man experiences the claim of reason as an obligation and a command that he should act in a particular way, which is the imperative ( Hopwood, 2017) . A hypothetical imperative is a conditional demand for the performance of an action whose end is predetermined, while a categorical imperative is an unconditional demand for performance of an action for its own sake.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On the other hand, the principle of universalizability reflects the position of the principle of universal prescriptivism especially when illuminating on singular moral judgments. The principle of prescriptivism explains the positions in which the singular descriptive judgments are universalizable due to the notion of similarity ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . For example if we consider that Q is blue, we are committed to holding to the notion that anything that is like Q in the relevant respects is also blue. This implies that the universalizability of “Q is blue” is inclined on making comparisons stated in the proposition that anything that is like Q in the relevant respect is also blue, which explains the way in which the comparison correlates with the original singular judgment.
Application to the Real World
The principle of universalizability is considered as one that does not apply to actions, but to maxims. Applying the principle of universalizability to the real world involves extraction from the description of the case of the maxim on which an individual in the case proposes to take an action ( Moad, 2018) . The process of extraction from the description of the case involves formulation of the categorical imperative as a guide, where a person has to act based on the principle that if the maxim or his choice of his action were to go through, then this would be a universal law in nature ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . The maxim or the actions of a person in the real world are therefore the subjective principles in accordance with which the individuals act. The actions can be useful in formulating a universal law, where this maxim should become the rule of action on which an individual is proposing to act.
Plausibility of the Concept
In general terms, the concept of the principle of universalizability is that moral principles including actions and maxims are universally true, where the basis of their truth in any particular sense can be applicable to all cases ( Hopwood, 2017) . Testing the plausibility of the principle of universalizability to prove that there is no absolute truth involves proving that the principle is valid from the relativist conception. In logic, a proposition or a valid argument will be said to be having universal if it is conceived as holding truth in all possible contexts without bringing in any form of contradiction ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . A truth can be considered to be universal not only if it is logical, but also transcends above its times and places. The principle of universalizability shows that universal truth is logically considered to transcend the state of the physical universe, whose order is derived from such truths. This implies that such truths are considered as universal or absolute.
Example of the Idea of Universalizability
The best example where the idea of universalizability; consistent judgments has not played out in the business world is in the concept of fair play. The most characteristic features of the concept of fair play in the business world are that an individual cannot make an exception of oneself. Whenever the participants in the business world agree upon the rules of corporate behavior and then someone violates the rules for profitability, such contradictions are morally wrong. This implies that the maxim permitting universal violation of the rules of corporate behavior is self-defeating. The idea has not played out in the business world because the self-defeating natures of the actions that are based on maxims that cannot be universal are extracted before universalization takes place ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . In this case, being constrained by the principle of universalizability or the practical reason of any rational being involves arguing that an individual should act according to a maxim where the actions should become a universal law. In the business world, each individual agent is regarded as self-determining, by his or her decision in such a way that everyone acting according to the same should achieve a general rule in the future ( Chen & Wu, 2015) . The best example is where a person contemplates relieving a financial crisis by getting a loan from someone else, pledging to pay in future but lacks such an intention in the future while. Such a case would be argued out that the practice of lending money should presuppose an intention of repayment. If such conditions were universally ignored, it implies that false promises would never be the effective methods of getting loans.
References
Chen, H. W., & Wu, C. (2015). An Assessment of Differentiating Unsituated vs. Situated Moral Judgments in Different Positional Standpoints.
Hopwood, M. (2017). Murdoch, Moral Concepts, and the Universalizability of Moral Reasons. Philosophical Papers , 46 (2), 245-271.
Moad, E. (2018, September). Universalizability and the Metaphysics of Moral Particularism, Specified. In The Philosophical Forum (Vol. 49, No. 3, pp. 309-324).
