Every day each of us asks ourselves what we should do. Sometimes we ask ourselves, “What if everyone did this?” Every time you decide to pick up a piece of trash because you want the city to look nice, you are not doing so for the aesthetic effect of a piece of trash, but rather for what the city would be like if no one picked up their own trash. garbage. Kant uses this everyday question in his moral system as part of the categorical imperative. For Kant, the morality of an action can be determined by the categorical imperative. Kant would like to determine the morality of stealing, so Kant wants to examine the morality of “I will steal whatever I want to satisfy my desire.” Then Kant reformulates the statement to ask the question: what would happen if everyone did this? “Everyone will steal whatever they want to satisfy their own desire.” So Kant makes this statement a maxim, a law to be followed by everyone in Kant's world of tests. Kant looks at the world and asks can you consistently maintain your maxim in a world where this is a law? But if everyone steals what they want, how can there be property rights since it is right for anyone to take anything at any time? He can't. Since there are no property rights, the maxim breaks down since theft only occurs when someone takes property from the rightful owner. Since there is a contradiction in the conception of the maxim, you are prohibited from acting on that maxim. Imagine Ice Man, a cold, rational person who finds no internal satisfaction in spreading joy and cannot take pleasure in the satisfaction of others. Does Ice Man have a duty to help others when they are in need? Ice Man is rich and doesn't need help from others? Ice Man wants to determine the morality of "I will not help others when they need help." So, what if everyone didn't help others when they needed help? Although this is an unhappy world, there is no contradiction in conception in this maxim, unlike the above. But does it overcome Kant's contradiction in the test of will? Ice Man is defined as a rational being. Being a rational being, Ice Man knows that one day he too will have needs. Since he is a rational being, he will prefer someone to help him, and as a rational being, he cannot want anyone to help others when they are in need. Since we fail the contradiction in the test of willpower, even... middle of the paper... universalizing the situation and removing one's self-interest, then we judge the consequences of our actions without prejudice or preference. By ignoring the question “What if everyone did this?”, we can justify murder, lies, and other immoral acts that can hurt far more than we think in the heat of the moment. If I leave rubbish on the ground when I'm in a hurry or under pressure and I think it's okay, that rubbish on the ground means that someone else will have to pick it up and that other people will feel freer to do so. throw the garbage there.1 Many actions may seem to hurt no one, but overall they cause pain to others. By ignoring the question “What if everyone did this?”, we ignore the infinitesimal effects our actions have on everyone we come into contact with or simply feel the secondary effects of. Therefore, the universal question “What if everyone did this?” it should be part of our ethical thinking.1 Last year I conducted an informal study on this topic in my social room, with dirty dishes in the sink and paper napkins on the floor. The difference in dirt after an hour was impressive. Real studies have also been done on this.