Actually, Abdul Haq, you are a Kantian, a believer in the Categorical Imperative. :-)
The Categorical Imperative has the general form: DO 'A' (i.e., it is UNCONDITIONED). There is only one imperative that commands us unconditionally and that is the Moral Law: "Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
This single Categorical Imperative, however, has several formulations. The first is: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law of nature." The second is:"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only."
I do not agree with Lather (although you apparently do) that the statement "I know the purpose of life", in and by itself, indicates that you are necessarily rigid in your attitudes.
It is one thing to say you "know" the ultimate purpose of life. It is quite another to say you "know" precisely how that purpose will be, or should be, realized. Its like the end and the means; we may both agree on the same end, but differ on the proper means to achieve it.
There are people who feel they know the purpose of life. Then there are those who, as you say, don't even want to think about it. And then there are those who have a purpose IN life, but are not at all sure they know the purpose OF life. In other words, X leads his life AS IF there were some higher purpose, but he is by no means convinced that there is. There are quite a few people in this category.
And you seem to contradict yourself a bit here, when you talk about an "anything goes, accommodate all attitude" which makes it "pointless to discuss problem solving". Elsewhere, you express the belief that there is a core moral sense that even the most reprobate criminals share (our Kantian Categorical Imperative).
jbe
|
