Universal Moral Laws

In the second section of Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant proposes the idea that we cannot create universal moral laws based on our own experiences. He even goes as far as stating that “no experience can give occasion to infer even just the possibility of such apodictic laws” (4:408). I object quite strongly to this argument. Due to the way we as human beings are wired, it is impossible for one to completely push aside prior experience when faced with making a decision. Even if we were to attempt to disregard any experiences we may have had, as well as the outcomes of those experiences, our actions would still be unconsciously biased because the past events and consequences of the events are biologically ingrained into our memories.  

Also, Kant frequently mentions the idea of “rational” human beings; but often when we think of rational people, we typically think of individuals who view all aspects of a situation and take into account the possible consequences of that action, prior to making any decision regarding their course of action. It would then appear illogical for a rational person, who according to Kant is able to determine categorical imperatives, to not reference any personal experience, cultural views, material interest, or analyze past actions, when determining what should be considered a moral principle.

Overall, the argument that when attempting to determine universal moral laws we cannot utilize our own personal experiences seems invalid. Not only is it nearly impossible to ignore what we have already learned from our experiences, it would also be quite illogical to not incorporate knowledge of consequences of certain actions into the formation of these moral laws. It is important that we understand the significance of actions in order to determine which actions would produce the most positive outcome and, as Mill would say, “maximize the good and minimize the bad”, to then determine which actions should be considered for universal moral principles.