THE EDITOR, Sir:
I WOULD like to exhibit the merits of a great and ageless ethical principle that I (and others) feel could be the individual answer to public immorality. The principle is called, "The categorical imperative" as developed by its creator Immanuel Kant, the dutiful 18th century German thinker.
Professor Kant preached from a pietist parental background that man's duty ethically is to "so act as to denote what he would have as a universal law". In other words, he was saying that no one should do anything he would not be willing to do or confess doing on a mountain top overlooking the world. Invariably, this private moral law becomes public. It dictates that what one considers to be correct or right is something that that individual would or should want for all.
This is the 'categorical imperative'- an instruction/command (imperative) that stretches across all borders (categories). It is the death of relativist or situation ethics that states that nothing is right or wrong in and of itself. This instruction is 'rule ethics': there are some rules that govern life as a whole. Therefore, it is the belief in Absolutes some things are just right and some are wrong, full stop.
Professor Kant, being a dutiful man, thought and taught that all this exceeds emotion. The issue is not about how one feels. In fact, emotions are a weakness that kills moral action. The real deal is 'what one ought to do'(oughtness). It is our duty to do right. I see in this principle and its tenets something of Christian ethics; but that's another issue. In all, I believe we could benefit from practising this principle. If each one set a personal moral standard that considers the whole, it would be like answering the question, "How does one shorten the line of corruption?". Simple: do not join it.
I am etc.,
NICHOLAS ALEXANDER
nic7lex@hotmail
