The Case of Miss Sophie and the Purloined Periodical

The Case of Miss Sophie and the Purloined Periodical^[1] 

Miss Sophie is a student at South Seattle CC who needs an article from a periodical for a paper she’s writing.  On Friday, April 08, 2005, at 10PM, she goes to the library and finds the periodical she needs.  But Miss Sophie has no money to copy the article, and she’s too lazy to go back to her dorm to get it.  So she considers ripping the article out of the periodical and taking it.  If she were to do it, she would be acting on a maxim.

Let A1 be Miss Sophie’s act-token of taking the article on April 08, 2005, at 10PM.

• M(A1):  When I need an article from a periodical, and I’m too lazy to get the money to copy it, I shall rip it out and take it.
• GM(A1):  When anyone needs an article from a periodical, and they’re too lazy to get the money to copy it, they shall rip it out and take it.

Miss Sophie must now consider whether she can consistently will that the generalized form of her maxim, GM(A1), could be a law of nature.  She realizes that she cannot.

1. GM(A1) cannot be a law of nature.
2. If GM(A1) cannot be a law of nature, then the agent of A1 cannot consistently will GM(A1) to be a law of nature.
3. A1 is morally right if and only if the agent of A1 can consistently will that GM(A1) be a law of nature.
4. Therefore, A1 is not morally right.

So Miss Sophie goes home, without the article, to do more research on Kant.  She wants to find a way around Kant’s Categorical Imperative.  She realizes that if she only makes her maxim more specific, she can consistently will its generalized form to be a law of nature.

Let A2 be Miss Sophie’s act-token of taking the article on April 9, 2005, at 10PM.

• M(A2):  When I need an article on the philosophy of Plotinus, and my name is spelled S-O-P-H-I-E, and it’s April 9, 2005, at 10PM, and I’m too lazy to get the money to copy the article, then I shall rip it out and take it.
• GM(A2):  When anyone needs an article on the philosophy of Plotinus, and their name is spelled S-O-P-H-I-E, and it’s April 9, 2005, at 10PM, and they’re too lazy to get the money to copy the article, then they shall rip it out and take it.  

Miss Sophie considers whether she can consistently will that the generalized form of her maxim be a law of nature, and she sees that she can!

1. GM(A2) can be a law of nature.
2. If GM(A2) can be a law of nature, then the agent of A2 can consistently will GM(A2) to be a law of nature.
3. A2 is morally right if and only if the agent of A2 can consistently will that GM(A2) be a law of nature.
4. Therefore, A2 is morally right.

Now it seems to me that reflection on Miss Sophie’s reasoning leads to an effective criticism of Kantian Moral Theory:

1. If CI(1) is true, then A1 and A2 have different moral status.
2. But A1 and A2 do not have different moral status.
3. Therefore, CI(1) is not true.

A1 and A2 do not have different moral status.  Anyone watching Miss Sophie’s performing A1 and A2 would see her do the same type of thing each time.  Nothing relevant to morality has changed from one time to the next.  But Kant would say that they are different.  So Kant is wrong.  CI(1) is not true.