Moral Clarity V - The Categorical Imperative and Exceptionalism

In <a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/1087&quot; target="”_blank”">my first blog post</a> relating to Susan Neiman’s book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Clarity-Grown-Up-Idealists-Revised/dp/06911…; target="”_blank”"><i>Moral
Clarity:
A
Guide for Grown-Up Idealists</i></a> (Princeton, 2008), I
referred to Immanuel Kant’s “categorical imperative.” It’s time to say
a little more about it.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>

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.<br>
<br>
As Neiman says, the categorical imperative is “an attack on
exceptionalism.” And exceptionalism is at the heart of unethical
conduct in government.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Other blog posts in this series:<br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/node/1087&quot; target="”_blank”">Reason
and Ideals</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/moral-clarity-ii-intentions&quot; target="”_blank”">Intentions</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/moral-clarity-iii-ethics-environments…; target="”_blank”">Ethics Environments</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cityethics.org/content/moral-clarity-iv-self-interest&quot; target="”_blank”">Self-Interest</a><br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---