SUS1501
ASSIGNMENT 2 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: March 2025
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no
later than March 2025. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
Evaluation of the Statement: "Good for them – they worked hard to earn this" Using Kant’s
Formula of Universal Law
Step 1: Stating the Proposed Act as a Maxim
The proposed act can be formulated as a maxim: "It is morally acceptable for individuals to
accumulate extreme wealth, such as earning R77 million per day, as long as they have worked hard
to achieve it."
Step 2: Restating the Maxim as a Universal Law
The next step is to universalize this maxim: "All individuals who work hard should be allowed to
accumulate unlimited wealth, regardless of its impact on others or society."
Step 3: Asking Whether the Maxim is Conceivable in a World Ruled by This Universal Law
To test the logical consistency of this maxim, we must consider whether a world in which everyone
follows this principle could function coherently. If every individual had the ability and opportunity
, to amass extreme wealth through hard work, it would imply an economic system where disparities
are ignored and social welfare is not a moral concern. However, in reality, wealth is often
accumulated not only through hard work but also through systemic advantages, inheritance,
monopolies, or exploitation. Thus, the universalization of this principle would create a world where
economic inequality is justified purely on the basis of effort, disregarding structural injustices or
ethical concerns regarding wealth distribution.
Since such a world would lead to extreme disparities and social instability, the maxim is not fully
conceivable as a universal law.
Step 4: Asking Whether One Would Rationally Act on This Maxim in Such a World From a rational
standpoint, Kant argues that moral principles must be universally applicable and not self-
contradictory. If everyone followed the maxim that unlimited wealth accumulation is justified solely
by hard work, economic inequalities would intensify, leading to conditions where many individuals
would lack essential resources and opportunities. In such a world, many people would rationally
oppose the maxim because it does not promote fairness or universal dignity. Moreover, it
contradicts Kant’s principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than merely as
means to economic gain.
Thus, rational agents would likely reject this maxim because it does not uphold fairness, social
harmony, or respect for all persons as moral beings.
Kant's Likely Response Kant would probably argue against this maxim because it fails both the
conceivability test and the rational will test. He would likely claim that a moral principle allowing
unrestricted wealth accumulation solely based on work effort ignores broader ethical
considerations such as fairness, dignity, and the social impact of wealth inequality. According to
Kant’s moral philosophy, ethical principles must be universally fair and respect the intrinsic worth
of all individuals, rather than enabling a system that disproportionately benefits a select few.
Personal Opinion Based on the Kantian analysis, I would argue that the statement "Good for them
– they worked hard to earn this" oversimplifies the ethical considerations surrounding extreme
wealth accumulation. While hard work is valuable, a moral society must also consider the principles
ASSIGNMENT 2 (SEMESTER 1)
DUE DATE: March 2025
Written Assignment Submission Guidelines:
Please ensure that your assignment is submitted electronically through the myUnisa platform no
later than March 2025. Kindly note that fax or email submissions will not be accepted.
NB: Assignment submitted to the lecturer(s) through email will not be considered.
QUESTION 1
Evaluation of the Statement: "Good for them – they worked hard to earn this" Using Kant’s
Formula of Universal Law
Step 1: Stating the Proposed Act as a Maxim
The proposed act can be formulated as a maxim: "It is morally acceptable for individuals to
accumulate extreme wealth, such as earning R77 million per day, as long as they have worked hard
to achieve it."
Step 2: Restating the Maxim as a Universal Law
The next step is to universalize this maxim: "All individuals who work hard should be allowed to
accumulate unlimited wealth, regardless of its impact on others or society."
Step 3: Asking Whether the Maxim is Conceivable in a World Ruled by This Universal Law
To test the logical consistency of this maxim, we must consider whether a world in which everyone
follows this principle could function coherently. If every individual had the ability and opportunity
, to amass extreme wealth through hard work, it would imply an economic system where disparities
are ignored and social welfare is not a moral concern. However, in reality, wealth is often
accumulated not only through hard work but also through systemic advantages, inheritance,
monopolies, or exploitation. Thus, the universalization of this principle would create a world where
economic inequality is justified purely on the basis of effort, disregarding structural injustices or
ethical concerns regarding wealth distribution.
Since such a world would lead to extreme disparities and social instability, the maxim is not fully
conceivable as a universal law.
Step 4: Asking Whether One Would Rationally Act on This Maxim in Such a World From a rational
standpoint, Kant argues that moral principles must be universally applicable and not self-
contradictory. If everyone followed the maxim that unlimited wealth accumulation is justified solely
by hard work, economic inequalities would intensify, leading to conditions where many individuals
would lack essential resources and opportunities. In such a world, many people would rationally
oppose the maxim because it does not promote fairness or universal dignity. Moreover, it
contradicts Kant’s principle of treating individuals as ends in themselves rather than merely as
means to economic gain.
Thus, rational agents would likely reject this maxim because it does not uphold fairness, social
harmony, or respect for all persons as moral beings.
Kant's Likely Response Kant would probably argue against this maxim because it fails both the
conceivability test and the rational will test. He would likely claim that a moral principle allowing
unrestricted wealth accumulation solely based on work effort ignores broader ethical
considerations such as fairness, dignity, and the social impact of wealth inequality. According to
Kant’s moral philosophy, ethical principles must be universally fair and respect the intrinsic worth
of all individuals, rather than enabling a system that disproportionately benefits a select few.
Personal Opinion Based on the Kantian analysis, I would argue that the statement "Good for them
– they worked hard to earn this" oversimplifies the ethical considerations surrounding extreme
wealth accumulation. While hard work is valuable, a moral society must also consider the principles
