INTRODUCTION Yet, Reggie returned the suitcase Yet, Red returned the suitcase without the

without the promise of a reward. Why? promise of a reward.

Perhaps, he had previously returned lost
luggage to passengers. Maybe, it was his
During the flag ceremony of that first time to do So. Maybe, he received a
Monday morning, January 24, 2017, the reward before, or maybe he knows some As we previously said, perhaps,
mayor of Baguio City awarded a certificate fellow taxi drivers who did or did not Reggie believed that it was the right thing to
from the City Government that commended receive rewards from passengers after they do. Ev if he felt that he could have
Reggie Cabututan for his "extraordinary returned lost luggage. However, the point is benefitted from the sale of the valuable
show of honesty in the performance of their that there was no promise of a reward. A items in the suitcase he must have believed
duties or practice of profession." Reggie is a reward, in the first place, is not an the principle that it is right to do the right
taxi driver who, just three days before the entitlement. It is freely given as an thing. Reggie could be holding on to this
awarding, drove his passenger, an Australian unrequired gift for one's service or effort. moral conviction as a principle of action.
named Trent Shields, to his workplace. The Otherwise, it! would be a payment, not a
foreigner, having little sleep and was ill the reward, if someone demanded it.
previous day, left his suitcase inside the taxi
cab after he reached his destination. The To hold a moral conviction means
suitcase contained a laptop, passport, and an believing that it is one's duty to do the right
expensive pair of headphones, which Trent Why did Reggie return the suitcase? thing What is duty? Why does one choose to
claimed amounted to around P260,000 2 For now, let us suppose his main reason follow her duty even if doing otherwise may
simply because it was right to return lost bring her more benefits?
property to the rightful owner, no matt
tempting it is to keep it for oneself. Is it
Consider closely the moment when possible that Reggie's reason for returning
Reggie found that Trent had left a suitcase in luggage was not because of any reward DUTY AND AGENCY
his taxi cab: If he were to return the suitcase, whether psychic or physical? "It is simply
there was no promise of an award from the the thing to do, "Reggie might have told
City Government of Baguio and no promise himself.
of a reward from the owner. What if he took The moral theory that evaluates
the suitcase sold its contents? That could What if Reggie did not return the actions that are done because of duty is
surely help him supplement his daily wages. suitcase, destroyed the lock, then took and a called deontology. Deontology comes from
Life as a taxi driver in the Philippines is not its valuable contents? What is wrong about the Greek word deon, which means "being
easy. A little extra cash would go a long way keeping and benefitting from the valuable necessary! Hence, deontology refers to the
to put food on the table and to pay tuition that someone misplaced? "It is his fault; he study of duty and obligation. The main
fees for his children. was mindless and careless," Reggie could proponent of deontology is Immanuel Kant
ha! thought. As the saying goes: Finders (1724-1804). He was a German
keepers, losers weepers. On one hand, Enlightenment philosopher who wrote one
Reggie com have mused: "He will learn to of the most important works on moral
be more mindful of his things from now on." philosophy, Groundwork towards a
Metaphysics of Morals (1785). In this work, better world, and create mental images of internal impulses. In contrast w have reason,
Kant brings our attention to the fact that we how we interact with other people in that which intervenes between impulse and act.
human beings, have the faculty called world. In the same way, an architect "first" We have the ability to think about what we
rational will, which is the capacity to act constructs her blueprint of a house in her are doing to evaluate our actions according
according to principles that we determine for mind. When the draft of that construction is to principles stated we are not only reacting
ourselves. drawn, she can then give instructions to to our surroundings and internal impulses,
masons and carpenters on how to build the but conceiving of ways to act according to
actual house, which becomes the "second" certain rational principles,
construction. This happens often in our lives
To consider the rational will is to such as when a young girl puts on her nice
point out the difference between animals and dress and makeup, when a student writes the
persons. On one hand, animals are sentient outline for an English essay, or when a Right now, for example, you may
organisms. Sentience, meaning an organism painter makes initial sketches on a canvass. feel lethargic. Your head feels heavy and
has the ability to perceive and navigate its The first construction consists in how we your a are droopy. The corresponding
external environment. Insofar as dogs and imagine things can be, then we implement impulse is to close your eyes and then fall
carabao are sentient organisms, we do not that in the second construction. Through the asleep. Howa your rational will demand
see them bumping into trees and walls capacity for imagination and reflection, we something else. Perhaps, you have to finish
unless their sense are weak. Animals conceive of how we could affect, possibly reading this chap for a quiz tomorrow. That
constantly interact with their surroundings. even change, the world we live in. quiz is part of the big picture, that is, your
This is also true to us humans we are also formation as a stude to earn a degree and do
sentient. Thus, both animals and persons productive work. So you struggle to stay
interact in and with the world, reacting to awake; you stand up brie to stretch your
external stimuli and internal impulses to Thus, we do not only have the legs. You may have already taken some
survive and thrive. capacity to imagine and construct mental coffee. Right now, as you struggle stay
images, but we also have the ability to act! awake and understand the words on this
on-to enact and make real-those mental page, your rational will is victorious over
images. This ability to enact our thoughts is you bodily impulses as long as you stay
On the other hand, people are also the basis for the rational will. The rational awake. This demonstrates the triumph of
rational. Rationality consists of the mental will refers to the faculty to intervene in the your rational will over your base impulse to
faculty to construct ideas and thoughts that world, to act in a manner that is consistent just go to sleep. This triumph clarifies the
are beyond our immediate surroundings. with our reason. As far as we know, animals meaning of rational will, the capacity of a
This is the capacity for mental abstraction, only act according to impulses, based on person to be the cause of her actions based
which arises from the operations of the their natural instincts. Thus, animals "act on reasons and not merely to mindlessly
faculty of reason. Thus, we have the ability with immediacy (from Latin: i + medius, or react to the environment and base impulses.
to stop and think about what we are doing. "no middle") with nothing that intervenes In philosophical discussions about human
We can remove ourselves mentally from the between the impulse and the action. They do freedom, this capacity is called agency,
immediacy of our surroundings and reflect not and cannot deliberate on their actions. In which is the ability of a person to act based
on our actions and how such actions affect fact, we may say that animals do not only on her intentions and mental states.
the world. We can imagine a different and "react to their external surroundings and
considered their place in the universe. Akin legislating) and heteronomy means other
to Copernicus, Kant developed revolutionary law.
Let us go back to Reggie. The insights concerning the human mind and the
moment he discovered that Trent had left his conditions for the possibility of knowledge.
suitcase in the taxi cab, Reggie reacted In this chapter, the primary text of Kant,
according to his rational will to return the Groundwork towards a Metaphysics of Consider the trivial example of
suitcase. He determined that it was his duty Morals, shows his contributions in moral brushing one's teeth, which is not yet a
to return it inasmuch as his rational will had philosophy. By itself, this text is also moral dilemma but is sufficient to explain
conceived such a duty. revolutionary, insofar as Kant's ambition in the difference between autonomy and
the text is radical. He intends to develop heteronomy. When you were a child, did
what he calls the "supreme principle of you like to brush your teeth? As far as we
morality." It is supposedly supreme because can tell, children do not like to brush their
Hence, to act according to a duty is a by basing it on the faculty of reason, it teeth, but parents know that children should,
specifically human experience. Animals, if it becomes binding for all creatures that have to maintain oral hygiene. So parents try to
is true that they do not possess the faculty of that faculty ("Faculty" here means inherent find ways to get their small children to brush
rational will, cannot conceive of having mental capacity.) This ay, the binding force their teeth before going to bed, using a
duties This is the starting point of of obligation is no longer relative universal. variety of incentives or threats of
deontology. We may claim that as long as It no longer depends on what a person's undesirable consequences. "Hey, Ryan," a
we have rationality there will always be the historical, cultural, or religious mother tells her boy, "go and brush your
tension between our base impulses and our circumstances are. For as long as that person teeth now or else your teeth will rot!"
rational will. has the faculty of reason, the oral law is "Come on now, Liza, a father tells his
binding. Hence, Kant has become a key daughter, "If you brush your teeth in five
thinker in moral reflection. minutes, I will let you play your computer
game tonight." In the case of Ryan and Liza,
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) are they autonomous? Certainly not, as their
parents are the ones that legislate the
AUTONOMY principle that children should brush their
teeth before they go to bed and impose such
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a a principle by using threats or incentives.
German enlightenment philosopher who is
thought to herald the "Copernican Kant claims that the property of the
Revolution in Philosophy." What is meant rational will is autonomy (Ak 4:440), which
by Copernican Revolution? Nicolaus the opposite of heteronomy. These three Now think about Ryan and Liza
Copernicus was the 15th century astronomer Greek words are instructive: autos, heteros, twenty years later when they are in their
who proposed the heliocentric model of the ang nomos, which mean "self," "other" and midhventies. Suppose they brush their teeth
universe in his book De Revolutionibus "law,' respectively. Hence, when we every night before they go to bed, and they
Orbium Coelestium. This was a major event combine auto and nomos, we get autonomy; do so Without the prodding of their parents.
in the history of ideas because it heralded a heteros and nomos to heteronomy. Crudely At a certain point, perhaps when they were
radical paradigm shift in the way humans stated, autonomy means self-law (or self- growing up as teenagers, they both reflected
on the whole business of brushing one's Surprisingly though, the will must authority, thus heteronomous will. In
teeth. Both concluded that they (1) agree give the law to itself. Therefore, the will is, contrast, if the author was the will itself,
with the principle behind it (oral hygiene) at the same time, the authority figure giving imposing th. law unto itself, then we
and thus, (2) every night they impose it upon the law to itself. How can the rational will describe the will as autonomous. For the 25-
themselves to brush their teeth before going be Subordinate to that which is year-old versions Ryan and Liza who brush
to bed. Number refers to the act of simultaneously its own authority figure? their teeth before going to bed without any
legislating a principle, while number 2 refers Isn't that contradictory to be subject to the prompting from the parents, their adoption
to the enacting of the principle. Thus, it also law and yet also be the authority figure for of the childhood law about toothbrushing
refers to the willing of the adopted principle itself? Thus, Kant describes autonomy as the makes the locus of the authorship internal.
into reality. Are they autonomous? Yes, will that is subject to a principle or law. Thus, they are autonomous.
certainly. Kant describes this as follows:

This apparent contradiction is However, trivial actions such as

The will is thus not only subject to the law, entirely possible to exist, but only for self- brushing one's teeth can hardly be
but it is also subject to the law in such a way reflexive human beings that have rational considered "morale Real moral issues often
that it gives the law to itself (self- will. Remember Ryan and Liza, and the involve actions like stealing, lying, and
legislating), and primarily just in this way principle of brushing their teeth. On one murder, in that they have a certain gravity,
that the will can be considered the author of hand, heteronomy is the simple legislation insofar as those actions directly harm or
the law under which it is subject. (Ak 4:431) and imposition of a law by an external benefit the well-being of persons Reggie's
authority (a person must brush her teeth case, seen in this light, is clearly a moral
before going to bed). Their parents are the issue.
authority figures, and the law is imposed
This description of autonomy is externally by rewards or punishments. On
unusual. When we think of someone being the other hand, autonomy belongs to the
"subject to the law," we usually think of an grown-up and already rational Ryan and Let us remember that alternative
imposing authority figure that uses his Liza, who have adopted such a law about scenario that we imagined earlier: What if
power to control the subject into complying brushing their teeth. They regularly impose Reggie did not return the suitcase, destroyed
with his will. Imagine a policeman who such a law themselves out of the enactment the lock, then took and sold its valuable
apprehends a suspected Criminal by forcing of the will to follow the law. contents? Is this not an act of rational will?
him on the ground and putting handcuffs on Can we not claim that Reggie's rational will
his wrists. Incidentally, subject" comes from determines for itself how it enacts its duty in
the Latin words sub (under) and jacere (to this alternative scenario? Is Reggie not, after
throw). When combined, the two words The distinguishing point here is the all, acting as an autonomous agent? Reggie
refer to that which is thrown or brought locus of the authorship of the law. In any giv could have easily come upon the odious
under something. The will must comply with scenario where a person complies with the principle that he should benefit from Trent's
the law, which is the authority figure. law. we ask where the author is, whether loss because people who lose their things are
external or internal. If the author of the law careless, and thus do not deserve to keep
is external, the will is subjected to an extern those things. Therefore, Reggie may have
concluded, "I am entitled to benefit from this by impulses, and is therefore in itself brutum. Previously, rationality was
lost suitcase. I am the author of this (without an acquired skill of reason) not described as the mental capacity to construct
principle. I am acting autonomously! He pure, but can nevertheless be determined to ideas and thoughts that are beyond one's
may conclude this since no external do actions from pure will (Ak 6:213). immediate surroundings. This mental
authority is legislating laws for him by using capacity is what makes the intervention
rewards or punishments. However, this kind possible between stimulus and reaction.
of reasoning is mistaken from a Kantian With the faculty of reason, a person can
understanding as we will show below. Thus, there is a difference between break the immediacy of stimulus and
what determines a choice or decision, reaction by stopping to deliberate and assess
whether is caused by sensible impulse or by possible alternative actions. The above-
pure reason. On one hand, sensible impulses described jealous partner and raging
What do you think of Reggie's are usually bodily and emotional. Bodily basketball player, if they had enough self-
principle that he should benefit from other instincts and desires, such as the urge to eat, possession, could refrain from reacting
peoples loss because they are careless, and drink, sleep, or have sexual intercourse, mindlessly to the triggering stimuli and
thus do not deserve to keep those things? Is comprise the set of human compulsions for instead construct a rational response. For
it si autonomous agency when a person survival and the propagation of the species. instance, you may open up with your partner
enacts any apparently self-legislated Emotions and sentiments also make up what to talk about trust and setting boundaries, or
principle? We may argue that the locus of Kant considers sensible impulses. Practical you may tell the guarding opponent to take it
the authorship of the law was certainly examples are the jealousy from seeing your easy and play the game well. In both cases,
internal, when he ten himself. "I am entitled girlfriend or boyfriend make eyes at you orient your actions toward an overall
to benefit from this lost suitcase." based on someone, and the rage from being pushed aim that you aspire for trust and
how we have describe the difference foully by your opponent in a basketball sportsmanship, respectively. These aims are
between autonomy and heteronomy-self and game. As we previously claimed, when we mental constructions of the faculty of
other is that what autonom properly means? discussed the difference between animals reason. These examples do not imply that
Certainly not. and humans, there is immediacy to sensible people are not affected by sensible impulses.
impulses. There is hardly anything that The jealous feelings and anger are present,
comes between the stimulus and the but they do not immediately and
reaction. Kant calls this set of actions that automatically cause the actions. Based on
Kant claims that there is a difference are caused by sensible impulse animal the quote above (Ak 6:213), Kant describes
between rational will and animal impulse, choice or arbitrium brutum. that human choice can be affected but is not
are o ose look at how he describes the determined by sensible impulses.
distinction in this passage:

The choice that can be determined by pure On the other hand, there is a choice
reason is called free choice determinable or action that is determined by pure reason. What does it mean for a human to be
only by inclination (sensible Impulse, Kant calls this kind of action free choice, affected but is not determined by sensible
stimulus) would be an (arbitrium brutum). and one may argue that human freedom Impulse? It implies that we are indeed
Human choice in contrast, is a choice that resides in this capacity of reason to basically animals, but we cannot be reduced
may indeed be affected but not determined intervene, to "mediate" within arbitrium to mere animality. This is where the
correlative conjunction "not only, but also" benefit from the contents of the suitcase. UNIVERSALIZABILITY
is useful. When We claim, "The human Why would we consider his will as being
person is not only an animal, but is also heteronomous Because a sensible impulse
rational," we admit to two possible causes of would be the cause of such an action,
our actions: sensible impulses and the whether it is greed or the excitement of To figure out how the faculty of
faculty of reason. Human fr resides in that obtaining easy money without working for reason can be the cause of an autonomous
distinction. it, or the shame that arises from being unable acu need to learn a method or a specific
to provide for his family. In any of those procedure that will demonstrate autonomy or
Let us return once again to Reggie causes, a sensible impulse is akin to a But before explaining this procedure, it will
and the alternative scenario when he tells his "foreign impulse" that has the same be helpful to first make a distinction abou of
"lam entitled to benefit from this lost immediacy of an external authority figure moral theories, namely, substantive and
suitcase." Is Reggie acting autonomously that imposes its will on Reggie. formal moral theories.
suppos did not return the suitcase and
instead sold its contents for his own benefit?
We asker at the beginning of this section: Is
it always autonomous agency when a person We can thus make the conclusion A substantive moral theory
enacts a apparently self-legislated principle? that heteronomy of the will occurs when any immediately promulgates the specific
Certainly not. The difference between foreign impulse, whether it is external (as in actions that comprise that theory. As such, it
human cho and animal choice is crucial to other persons or institutions that impose identifies the particular duties in a
giving a correct answer here. Autonomy is a their will on the agent) or sensible (as in straightforward manner adherents of the
property of will only during instances when bodily instincts or base emotions) is what theory must follow. The set of Ten
the action is determined by pure reason. compels a person to act. In contrast, Commandments of the Judeo-Christian
When the action determined by sensible autonomy is the property of the will in those tradition is an unambiguous example of a
impulses, despite the source of those instances when pure reasons the cause of the substantive moral theory. The specific laws
impulses being neverthele internal, it is action. are articulated mostly in the form of a
considered heteronomous. Why straightforward moral command: "Honor
heteronomous? Because a sensible impulse your father and mother," You shall not kill"
"external" to one's self-legislating faculty of and so forth.
reason. Kant confirms this point when he But what consists in an action that is
state that the action caused by sensible done by an autonomous will insofar as the
impulses results always only in the caus of the action is pure reason? What does
heteronomy of the will because it is what he it mean to act according to pure reason? In contrast a formal moral theory
calls "a foreign impulse" (Ak 4:444), insofar does not supply the rules or commands
as the will does not a itself the law. straightaway. It does not tell you what you
may or may not do. Instead, a formal moral
theory provides us the form or framework of
the moral theory. To provide the "form" of a
Therefore, Reggie is not acting moral theory is to supply a procedure and
autonomously, supposing he was to take and the criteria for determining, on one's own,
the rules and morall commands. namely, action, maxim, will, and universal What does it mean to will a ma can become
Metaphorically, we can think of a cookbook law. Kant states that we must formulate an a universal law? It means that the maxim
as akin to a formal moral theory. In using a action as a maxim, which he defines as a must be universalizable, whic it means to
cookbook, we are given instructions on how "subjective principle of action" (Ak 4:422). "will that it become a universal law." This
to cook certain dishes, but we are not given In this context, a maxim consists of a "rule" means nothing other than ima world in
the actual food themselves, which would be that we live by in our day-to-day lives, but it which the maxim, or personal rule, that I
"substantive" In following a recipe for does not have the status of a law or a moral live by were adopted by everyone own
sinigang, for example, we may add a slight command that binds us to act in a certain maxim. In this formulation, Kant is telling
variation to the ingredients and sequence of way. Rather, maxims depict the patterns of us to conceive of the maxim as if it o
steps. But if we want the dish to remain our behavior. Thus, maxims are akin to the everyone to comply. This mental act of
sinigang and not transform it into some other "standard operating procedures" (SOPs) in imagining a universalized maxim does not
kind of viand like pochero, we need to our lives. We act according to a variety of we picture a world in which everyone
follow the steps that are relevant to making maxims, even if we are not aware of them. actually followed the maxim. Instead, we me
sinigang. To be exact, a formal moral theory Actually, we become aware of our maxims imagine the maxim as a law that everyone
will not give us a list of rules or commands. when we talk about ourselves. when we ought to follow. The proper way to imagine
Instead, it will give us a set of instructions reveal our habits and the reasons behind universalized maxim is not by asking, "What
on how to make a list of duties or moral them. For example, we tell our friends what if everyone did that maxim?" but by as
commands. we ordinarily do in certain specific asking "What if everyone were obligated to
situations: When the weekend comes, I follow that maxim?" Here is a clear
usually go to the beach with my family to example.
relax. When the exam week begins, I go to
Kant endorses this formal kind of mass so that I will be blessed with good
moral theory. The Grundlegung zur luck. Whenever I meet my crush, I wear my
Metaphysik der Sitten, which he wrote in hair in a braid so that he will notice me. In Groundwork towards a
1785, embodies a formal moral theory in These are usually personal policies" that Metaphysics of Morals, Kant takes up the
what he calls the categorical imperative, may or may not be unique to us, but we act issue of makina false promises (Ak 4:422).
which provides a procedural way of according to these maxims nonetheless. This He narrates the predicament of a man who
identifying the rightness or wrongness of an is why Kant calls a maxim a subjective needs money, bu has no immediate access to
action. Kant articulates the categorical principle of action. We have many maxims obtain it except by borrowing it from a
imperative this way: in our daily lives, and we live according to friend. This man know that he will not be
them. able to pay the money back, but if he says he
Act only according to such a maxim, by cannot return the money then no money will
which you can at once will that it become a be lent to him. Hence, the predicament is
universal law. (Ak 4:421) simply about him borrowing money, while
In the formulation of the categorical knowing that he cannot pay it back. This is a
imperative, Kant calls our attention to of specific act under the genera category of acts
maxims that we live by. He claims that we called false promising. Kant says that the
There are four key elements in this ought to act according to the maxim you can man would like to make such a promise, but
formulation of the categorical imperative, at once will that it become a universal law." he stops and asks himself if what he is about
to do is right or wrong: Is it really wrong to borrowing money would be defeated one (implies returning) but the intention is not to
borrow money without intending to pay it will lend money. In a world where it is an return. Of course, in the real world, many
back? If we were to formulate this ac as a obligation to borrow money will back, all people borrow money without intending to
maxim, it would go this way: "When I am in lenders would know that they will not be pay, but it is the logical plausibility of the
need of money, I shall borrow it even when I paid and they will refuse to The institution universalized maxim that is at stake. Here,
know I cannot pay it back." of money-borrowing would lose its meaning we reveal the contradiction that occurs when
if everyone was obligated to borrow money we scrutinize the maxim because, after all,
without intending to pay it back. As a one contradicts oneself when one borrows
universalized maxim, it would self-destruct money (implies intent to return) without
Remember that Kant states that we because it becomes impossible. This is how intending to pay it back. It makes no sense.
should act according to a maxim by which Kant assesses it: This is why Kant claims that the
we can at once will that it become a universalized maxim "could never be valid
universal law. What does it mean to Here I see straightaway that it could never as a universal law of nature and be
universalize the maxim about borrowing be valid as a universal law of nature and consistent with itself, but must necessarily
money without intending to return it? It is consistent with itselt, but must necessarily contradict itself." Thus, we can conclude
simple. Imagine a hypothetica world in contradict itself. For the universality of a that the act of borrowing money without
which each person, whenever she is in need law that each person, when he believes intending to pay is rationally impermissible.
of money, is obligated to borrow from himself to be in need, could promise Here, we discover two ways by which Kant
another even when she knows she cannot whatever ne pleases with the intent not to rejects maxims. The universalized maxim
pay it back. We do not imagine that peop keep it would make the promise and the becomes either (1) self-contradictory or (2)
actually borrowed money without intending purpose that he may have impossible, since the act and its purpose become impossible.
to return it. Instead, we think of them no one would believe what was promised
obligated to do so. Now, there are two him but would laugh at all such expressions
possibilities in this hypothetical world where as futile pretense (Ak 4:422).
peo are obligated to borrow money without What is the result of all these? We
intending to pay: the maxim can either make reveal the rational permissibility of actions
or not make sense as a universal law. By insofar as they cannot be rejected as
"making sense" we refer to the logical In the passage above, Kant universalizable maxims. In contrast, those
plausibility the universalized maxim. The distinguishes between being "consistent with universalized maxims that are rejected are
opposite of logical plausibility is self- itself" and "contradict itself." Look at the shown to be impermissible, that is, they are
contradiction impossibility. maxim again: "When I am in need of irrational and thus, in Kant's! mind,
money, I shall borrow it even when I know I immoral. But what does rational
cannot pay it back." The meaning of the act permissibility mean? Simply put, it refers to
"to borrow" implies taking and using the intrinsic quality of an action that it is
Let us assess that hypothetical world. something with the intent to return it. In the objectively and necessarily rational. Using
If borrowing money without in pay were maxim, the claim is to borrow"even when I the universalizability test, we can reveal the
everyone's obligation to comply with what know I cannot pay it back," which objective necessity of an action as rational.
would happen to the status of contradicts the very meaning of "to borrow." Observe, for example, the quality of the
the universalized maxim? The purpose of The contradiction is evident: to borrow arithmetical claim, "1 + 1 = 2" It is
objectively necessary because the quality of
the claim is universally and logically valid,
and we understand this to be always true as
rational beings. Observe the difference
between the quality of objectively necessary
claims with contingent claims, such as
claims about the world like "The sky is
blue" the truth of which depends on the
actual situation in the world. Therefore, we
have demonstrated that borrowing money
without intending to pay, as a kind of false
promise, is objectively and necessarily
wrong, insofar as it encounters a self-
contradiction and logical impossibility when
it is universalized as a maxim.