Instructions
Read Going Farther # 6, pp 167 – 173. The writing is an excerpt from Ta-Nehisi Coates, “A Letter to my Son.”
Perhaps you know the works of Ta-Neshi Coates. His 2015 National Book Awards book,
Between the World and Me, a bold and personal literary exploration of the history of American racism.
We have looked at how perspectives can open new ways of looking at matters, and how perspectives can close off consideration of perspectives that don’t comport with our “normal” ways of considering the realities of everyday life from situations different than ours.
Racism of any kind, treats the other as an object, and refuses to recognize either the “face-to-face” trace of divineness, or the “dialogic” necessity of the other. (See section on Levinas and Buber.)
The Categorial Imperative has three expressions:
•
Universalizability—A Categorical Imperative must be universal. A person must follow universal law regardless of outcome.
•
Human Dignity—A person has a duty not use themselves or others as a means to some other end.
•
Moral Legislation—A person must maintain her moral duty to seek an end that is equal for all people.
The Question:
I am interested in the Universalizability Expression of the Categorial Imperative. I think we can agree that a categorial imperative against racism should be followed no matter what the outcome. it is simply the right thing to do.
We know that a categorical imperative agains lying no matter what the outcome is, at best, problematic. Lying may be necessary because not lying could have morally unacceptable outcomes.
Historically we know that racist policies have often been continued because, the reasoning goes, outlawing the racist policies (whatever they may be) would cause such social chaos that many people would die.
Your assignment is, and you must accept it: What is the difference in the two situations? (Here the key is to look at the Universalizability criterion. Do the “categorial imperatives” of both situations meet the universalizability criterion?). 350 to 750 words.