A Wet Finger in the Wind

I am a big believer that if you don't pay attention to the potholes your ancestors suffered through, you're likely to either create or stumble into them yourself. And who wants that?

Today marks the 54th anniversary of the Watergate scandal. I probably just lost most of my viewers, but to those who are still hanging on by their fingernails, this is important: Nixon failed because his ethics failed, and we were watching. Let's talk a minute about ethics and Immanuel Kant. Why Kant? Because his view on ethics and morality was the basis for our Constitution.

Kant proposed an ethical framework based on duty, arguing that whether an action is moral is determined by intentions and rules rather than the consequences of that action, and that ethical laws are rooted in universal rationality rather than religion or personal feelings. I'm not going to go into detail about the Categorical Imperatives, but the Cliff Notes version is:

1. Before acting, ask yourself, "What if everyone acted this way?" If the answer is no, then the act is immoral, and not a candidate for a law or ruling. Examples might include stealing, lying, or intentionally harming another person (or community of persons).

2. Act in such a way that you never treat a person as a means to an end. In other words, you should never manipulate or merely "use" people to get what you want, or to make a point.

3. This last imperative ties the first two together by stating these laws would be moral and ethical, universally. For everyone, everywhere.

Sounds a bit like the "Golden Rule," doesn't it? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

Let's use the Categorical Imperatives to test current stuff circulating about the debate circuit. I'm not going to lean one way or the other, because these questions are for you, dear reader.

1. Is freedom of speech moral? Is it a right (law) or a privilege?

2. Is the ability to own firearms for personal protection moral? Is it a right (law) or a privilege?

3. Is the opportunity to live where you want, work in the field where you are most interested and qualified, or marry who you want moral? Are these actions a right (law) or a privilege?

This list can go on, but I would encourage you to consider the Categorical Imperatives as a philosophical backboard. It's healthy for us to ask ourselves why we take stands on specific issues. It's essential as hiring managers for our elected officials that we, as Kant suggested, look to ethical maxims (laws) rather than emotions to ensure we get the right person for the job.

I'm going to close with another test: if I were to ask you which political party you align with, I'm pretty sure you could answer, but why? This might surprise some of you, but our party system has all but flipped 180 degrees since my mother first voted in 1944. At the time, she registered as a Republican, so her choices would have been Dewey/Bricker. But my Grandfather and Harry Truman were great friends, and who didn't love the Roosevelts... Sometimes our decisions are little more than a wet finger in the wind.