Careful Jim, you're treading on thin ice here.
Kant's Categorical Imperative is essentially a restating of the Golden Rule, and as such is nothing new. "Act only on that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Additionally, most of the common defenses of Clinton; "he was duly elected," "he was unfairly targeted," "he was only trying to protect his family," etc. are not based in categorical imperative, but rather in hypothetical imperative.
And finally, his own behavior is a clear violation of the categorical imperative as stated "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end," but since categorical imperative is not a disputation of morality, but rather a refinement of morality, and morality is not really the issue here, neither is categorical imperative.
As for "imposing their tyrannical beliefs on others through our political system," if this is intended as a bipartisan statement, I agree wholeheartedly.
Respectfully,
Bob |
