CI, PD, and the value of diversity

Today's post answers the question of how I came to be against the categorical imperative.

I never liked the categorical imperative—not since I first learned about it in an ethics class during my second year in college. But my current reason for rejecting the CI is new.

When I first learned about the CI, I thought it could be used to prove just about anything and was therefore a bad theory. For example, CI proponents often use the CI to claim that lying is universally bad based on some specific cases of lying being bad. But there are some specific cases where it's bad to tell the truth, so what's wrong with the claim that telling the truth is universally bad?

In hindsight I'm sure I missed something about the CI.

But nevertheless, a couple years ago I changed my mind in a way that made my previous doubts about the CI moot. What happened is I came to believe that humans are part of their ecosystem, not apart from it. This change-of-mind may not sound like much, but it has profound consequences.

One such consequence is the corollary that we live in a world full of trade-offs—that few ways of doing things are better in all regards. This is opposed to the world view of the rationalist, who believes that by thinking things through hard enough, one can eventually arrive at the best answer. The answer may be worldly, such as the secular ethicist who believes in the universality of the CI, or it may be otherworldly, such as the monotheist who believes in an unlimited god.

The former is Hofstadter's world of pure reason and superrationality, where prisoner's dilemma players have cause to believe their thought process ought to be shared by all other players and that therefore there is a correct answer to the game. But if humans are in an ecosystem then there's no basis for that belief. Behavior in an ecosystem satisfies niche, not law. And niches are finite, mutable, and diverse.

This is in direct contradiction to the CI, which is infinite, unchanging, and uniform. Thus, the CI has no place in an ecological world view—unless of course one niche is to accept the CI.

Now, many people would object to what I've written. They might say: Yes, human behavior is subject to niche, but humans will be judged according to law. Thus, the CI could be valid as a law. This would be the position of, say, a Christian who accepts ecological principles.

I have no counter to that objection. It seems to me that where a person stands on this issue is a matter of faith. And I welcome a diversity of opinions on the matter.