Setting an Example

In Kant's Moral Principle, 'Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will to be a Universal Law', the most indeterminate aspect is 'you can. . .will to be'. Kant's own discussion encourages the most common interpretation, one which minimizes the roles of 'you can' and 'will', leaving the essential meaning of the formula as 'Act only on that maxim that can at the same time be a Universal Law'. On that interpretation, the Principle serves as a test of the logical soundness of a maxim, a test that is conducted impersonally. In contrast, some of Nietzsche's writings suggest a stronger reading of 'will', namely, where he urges that Philosophers be legislators, not mere spectators. An example of a legislative application of the Principle is Rawls' interpretation of 'will to be a Universal Law' as a process of rule-writing at the inception of some collective activity. Rawls is explicitly targeting politico-economic institutions with this interpretation, so he abstracts from the role of personal maxims, and their Moral import, in the formula. A third, uncommon, interpretation both retains the maxim as the point of departure of the Principle, and construes 'you. . . can . . . will' as personally active. That reading is 'Act only in such a way that you can at the same time set an example'. An example has the same Universality as a Law, setting an example involves active willing, and 'can' indicates the personal effort required to set an example of one's projected course of Action. Now, Exposition is the process of Externalizing oneself, and Externalizing oneself to a Universal audience entails a great degree of Exposition, so, example-setting entails a great degree of Exposition. Thus, since Individual Evolvement is Exposition without loss of Propriation, the deliberate and controlled effort to set an example is highly Evolved Conduct. Hence, on the heterodox reading, Kant's Principle promotes highly Evolved Conduct.