This is the sixth in a series of blog posts inspired by reading Susan Neiman’s book Moral Clarity: A Guide for Grown-Up Idealists (Princeton, 2008).

The impersonality of the categorical imperative, which I discussed in my last blog post, is paralleled in the independence of government ethics enforcement.

Neiman writes, “When it comes to matters of justice or decency, all the particulars that make individuals who they are, and undergird your reactions to them, ought to be put aside.” This is impossible to do with respect to an individual with whom you have a relationship, good or bad. This is why politically involved people should not sit on ethics commissions. And because politically involved people tend to know other politically involved people, this is an important reason why politicians should not be involved in selecting ethics commission members.

As Neiman says, taking an objective, philosophical approach is “the only way to get past the temptation to treat justice as a matter of helping your friends and hurting your foes.” This temptation is especially strong in government. It is so strong that it is the extremely rare instance when ethics matters are not treated as personal or political matters. It is hard for people in government to get past this temptation. Only uninvolved, neutral individuals are in a position to do this consistently.

Other blog posts in this series:
Reason and Ideals
Intentions
Ethics Environments
Self-Interest
The Categorical Imperative and Exceptionalism

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---