Moral Clarity V - The Categorical Imperative and Exceptionalism

In my first blog post relating to Susan Neiman’s book Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists (Princeton, 2008), I referred to Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative.” It’s time to say a little more about it.

Essentially, this is it: “When you act morally, you act according to a principle that you would make universal.” This is a less personal formulation of the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The difference is that, according to the categorical imperative, you act as you would have others act.

More concretely, giving a government contract to your sister means that you feel everyone should give contracts to their sisters, that contracts are for giving to sisters rather than benefiting the public. If you don’t think this is right, you shouldn’t do it, either.

As Neiman says, the categorical imperative is “an attack on exceptionalism.” And exceptionalism is at the heart of unethical conduct in government.

You might be wondering, Isn’t that “you would make universal” part of the categorical imperative pretty arrogant? Actually, it’s intended to be about logic, not arrogance. It’s a form of ethical reasoning that looks at the universal principles underlying our actions. Often we take them for granted, even when we violate them.

Take the promise, for example. Although we know that people make false promises, we accept the principle that people will do what they promise (unless the people are politicians). As Neiman points out, “The success of your false promise depends on the premise that most people tell the truth; lying itself doesn't work, otherwise.” If there were no universal principle of truth-telling, no one would believe a lie, nor would they believe a truth. Ethical principles anticipate violations of the principles, but that makes them no less valuable.

An important aspect of the categorical imperative is treating others as ends, rather than as means. That is, you should not use others to get what you want, any more than you would want others to use you to get what they want. This is a recognition of human dignity, something that is lost in many poor ethics environments, where government employees are frightened or ordered into going along with unethical conduct.

This is the principle behind such ethics provisions as prohibiting officials from dealing financially (or romantically) with subordinates, or allowing officials to ask subordinates to participate in political campaigns.

However, this principle is also central to the government ethics policy of respecting the public interest rather than manipulating the public in one's personal interest.

Other blog posts in this series:
Reason and Ideals
Intentions
Ethics Environments
Self-Interest

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---