Which principle states that an act is morally right if it can be universally applied?

Which principle states that an act is morally right if it can be universally applied?

• A. Distributive Justice
• B. Categorical Imperative
• C. Natural Law
• D. Corrective Justice

Answer: (B)

The main idea here is universalizability in moral reasoning. The principle, known as the Categorical Imperative, tells you to act only on maxims you could will to become universal laws. In other words, you imagine everyone following the rule behind your action; if that rule could consistently govern all people without contradiction, the action is morally permissible. This shifts ethics away from outcomes or personal desires and toward the form of the rule itself. For example, if you consider lying to get out of a commitment, you’d have to accept a world where everyone lies to get what they want, which would make promises meaningless and undermine trust, so the rule fails the test. Conversely, truth-telling and keeping promises could be universalized, supporting a functioning system of trust. Other concepts like fair distribution, natural-law reasoning, and corrective justice address different justice concerns and do not capture this universalizability test, which is why the categorical imperative best fits the idea of an act being morally right when it can be universally applied.

The main idea here is universalizability in moral reasoning. The principle, known as the Categorical Imperative, tells you to act only on maxims you could will to become universal laws. In other words, you imagine everyone following the rule behind your action; if that rule could consistently govern all people without contradiction, the action is morally permissible. This shifts ethics away from outcomes or personal desires and toward the form of the rule itself. For example, if you consider lying to get out of a commitment, you’d have to accept a world where everyone lies to get what they want, which would make promises meaningless and undermine trust, so the rule fails the test. Conversely, truth-telling and keeping promises could be universalized, supporting a functioning system of trust. Other concepts like fair distribution, natural-law reasoning, and corrective justice address different justice concerns and do not capture this universalizability test, which is why the categorical imperative best fits the idea of an act being morally right when it can be universally applied.