The chief use of universalizability is to prove moral judgments. We first establish that A is good. Then we show that B is relevantly or exactly similar to A. We conclude that B is also good.
The chief use of universalizability is to prove moral judgments. We first establish that A is good. Then we show that B is relevantly or exactly similar to A. We conclude that B is also good.
It's hard to show that B is relevantly or exactly similar to A. No two actual cases are exactly similar -- and it's hard to show that two actual cases are relevantly similar.
The chief use of universalizability is to prove moral judgments. We first establish that A is good. Then we show that B is relevantly or exactly similar to A. We conclude that B is also good.
The chief use of U is to test our consistency. Suppose that I accept "I ought not to help this person who is in need." This commits me to accepting "If I were in this person's exact position, then I ought not to be helped." If I accept the former but reject the latter, then I'm inconsistent.