Ethics- Categorical Imperative?

Question

Does anyone understand case studies? I have no idea what I am doing. I have to use this case http://ethics.sandiego.edu/resources/cases/Detail.asp?ID=71

for my study. I have to create a categorical imperative for each person so i can evaluate each person's intent and actions. The second thing I have to do is evaluate all the CI's created as a whole to decide what would be the right action. If anyone can help me with anything I would totally appreciate it. I dont understand this at all!

Answer 1

How the categorical imperative works is that you would imagine how the world would be like if everyone did something all the time. If that has bad results, you don't do it. If it has good ones, then you do.

So, for a hypothetical example, if you're thinking about stealing a candy bar, you imagine if EVERYONE stole candy bars. That would put probably put shopkeepers or candy manufaturers in trouble, so it's probably a bad idea.

Looking at the case you provided, the question really boils down to this: Should Wanda keep the expensive dolls as collateral for a payment she hasn't received? But let's look at specific points of view:

Wanda's husband has a straightforward angle. The family needs money. Having the children in the day care costs money. So every child they care for puts them further in the hole. If they ALWAYS care for children and get nothing back, they will lose everything and not even be able to care for children any more. A bad outcome for everybody.

Sheila's not in as good a situation. She has, arguably already broken her promise to pay 'in a week or two'. That money was supposed to come from her husband's pay, so her quitting her own job has no bearing on that. She is essentially in the same position as the thief in the example - if she ALWAYS tries to get favors from friends and not repay them, then she is likely to have no friends in very short order, even if she does profit a bit in the meantime. Short-term gain and long-term loss.

Wanda has arguably been the least consistent. She knew that it was best to get payment up-front but didn't do this (if she always didn't do it, she'd lose money). She didn't want children to bring expensive toys, but allowed Karen to anyway (if she always allowed it, she probably would eventually be responsible for broken ones and lose money). But she's the one with the real choice here.

If she always seizes the toys of children for parents who don't pay, she'll end up with a lot of toys, but not the money that she really wants. She's not even likely to end up with a lot of toys in the long-term, because parents will figure out what's going on and just stop letting their kids bring them. Lose-lose.

So if we put them all together, we see that she should ideally get the money somehow (her husband's imperative), but that keeping the toys isn't the best way to get it (from herself). Sheila should be expected to pay (from Sheila). Perhaps the only thing left for Wanda to do is to carry out some of these imperative outcomes that we've projected elsewhere: insist on getting the money from Sheila, stop making exceptions, and refrain even from being Sheila's freind in the future.

Hope that helps.

(PS: The link you put in the philosophy section doesn't work)