IMMANUEL KANT AND THE CATEGORICAL IMPERATIVE

Victor Bloom MD

Immanual Kant is a famous German philosopher whose writings are useful in understanding the moral crisis of America today. He was born in 1724 and died in 1804 and so lived in a time of revolutionary fervor and the beginning of modern scientific enlightenment. He remained a dutiful college professor, despite all his fame, and the story goes that you could set your watch by when he passed a certain spot on his way to class. He lived a calm, contemplative existence which gave him ample opportunity to think and write about the human condition.

He thought that we had innate ideas about the world, especially about human beings relation to each other in civilized society. Although Descartes and Leibnitz also gave rise to concepts of innate ideas, those of Kant were more subtle and intimately related to empirical experience. In other words, we must generate our ideas, using the data of history, current events and everyday life. Depending on what we experience or perceive, certain innate concepts are activated.

Kant's attempt to define precisely the domain of rational understanding is a landmark in Western thought. He opposed Hume's scepticism, the idea that pure reason is of no use in the understanding of the world, and on the other, he challenged enlightenment faith in the unlimited scope of reason. Avoiding these opposite positions, he was free to explore the realistic middle ground and gray areas of the real world. His ideas had to be tested, at first logically, and then pragmatically.

The notions of duty, moral law, the categorical imperative and the autonomy of the will are bound up together and constitute the distinctive concepts of Kantian ethics.

For Kant, the categorical imperative, which seemed logically sound and undeniable, was to treat other persons as ends and not means.

At first glance it seems a version of the Golden Rule, to treat others as you would be treated, but considering the complexity of each human being, human relationships and life itself, it is often difficult to determine what is using, exploiting or abusing. Kant suggests examination of the unique, individual circumstance.

In the instance of the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, the two opposing forces take a different view of the data supplied by the Starr report. The report is a long document detailing numerous aspects of a taboo relationship, which has been regarded as personal and irrelevant by one side, public and meaningful on the other. Clinton supporters put the affair in the category of consensual, adult sex, for which the government should allow privacy, while Starr supporters are powerfully impacted by the immorality of adultery, perjury and the abuse of power.

What has separated out is that for the most part the Democrats hold that the scandal is really a minor matter,franck muller replica watches a trite example of office hanky-panky, while the Republicans, strongly influenced by the Religious Right, a minority which used to be called the 'moral majority.' The former holds to a moral relativism (situational morality), while the latter insists on an absolute moral law. The discussion between the two opposing forces makes it seem like the foundation of government or civilization itself is at stake.

If we attempt a Kantian analysis of the Clinton-Lewinsky imbroglio, what do we see and what do we find? A seductive and ambitious young lady seeking favors from a powerful and attractive man? A head of state taking advantage of a young and impressionable groupie? A father figure having an incestuous relationship with a daughter-figure? The chief executive suffering from a psychiatric condition, sexual addiction? The inevitable consequence of a troubled marriage? The media's intrusion into private lives instead of leaving peccadillos alone? The inevitable consequence of a lifetime of lying and scheming? Or the expected consequence of serious deficiencies in early childhood development?

All of the above? None of the above? It is interesting that conservative Republicans blame and find fault, while liberal Democrats are understanding and forgiving. But what happens to the categorical imperative? What is the proper way for us as citizens to view what has been set before our eyes and ears, brains and heart?

It might be helpful to consider whether president Clinton used Ms Lewinsky as a means or an end, and whether the intern used the leader of the free world as a means or an end. The task is not simple or easy, but try to set your preconceived ideology aside while considering the case on its merits.

The ultimate question of virtue and morality is "the greatest good for the greater number." I leave it to the reader to put this issue in historical context and attempt to predict which side has a position which will lead to the greatest good for the greatest number.

Which leaves us the question of what is good.

Dr. Bloom is Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University School of Medicine. He is a Diplomate of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology and Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association. He is a member of the American Academy of Psychoanalysis and corresponding editor of their quarterly journal, Academy Forum and on the editorial board of the Detroit Medical News. He welcomes comments and questions at his e-mail address: vbloom@comcast.net.