The Moral Imperative and the Golden Rule Applied to Syria

A moral imperative is defined in Merriam's Dictionary as "something that must happen because it is the right thing." The concept originated with Immanuel Kant, the 18th century German philosopher who broadly created the modern approach to philosophical discussion. The moral imperative was the idea that every human being has within him or her a conscience that continually asks : "Is what I am about to do something that I would want other human beings to do?" For Kant, not following the moral law was seen to be self-defeating and thus contrary to reason because the moral law embodied the universal law that governs all human behavior. Kant's moral imperative was further developed by the French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre in the mid-20th century. For Sartre, the moral imperative is a principle originating inside a person's mind that compels that person to act. Later thinkers took the imperative to be the divine voice speaking through the human spirit. The dictates of conscience are right and often resist further justification. Looked at another way, the experience of conscience is the basic experience of encountering the right. Of course, exceptions are cut out for two types of human beings - the "insane" whose inner conscience is so damaged that it leads to unacceptable decisions, and "sophists," those who are so adept at logical argument (think about the question 'how many angels can dance on a pin head') that they can turn any question of conscience to their own non-moral advantage. The moral imperative is both individual and collective because it forces each person to include the community of humankind in his or her decisionmaking. One might see a comparison with the Golden Mean or Rule that gives a working principle for human acts : "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Both the moral imperative and the Golden Mean are meant to prevent us from doing the bad and choosing the best at the point when we are going to act in any case. ~~~~~ Of course, dear readers, the moral imperative is shouting at all of us as we consider where we stand vis-à-vis Syria and al-Assad's chemical weapons attacks, and also his conventional massacre of thousands of Syrian civilians who were supposedly entrusted to him for protection and care because he is their president. The voice of conscience in each of us is fairly screaming "Do something." But it is being confronted by another voice that is whispering "It isn't our problem." But those two voices are compatible if we acknowledge that the massacres and chemical atrocities that have killed innocent children and adults is, indeed, not "our" problem. It is "everyone's" problem. Massacre and chemical attacks are seen by all normal human beings as anathema. It is mankind that must stop the slaughter. America may lead. Russia may wriggle in by virtue of President Obama's incompetence in foreign affairs. But mankind must respond. That is what makes the United Nations important. The UN is the world's collective voice of conscience. It is sometimes co-opted by political partisan groups, but this time it must brush these aside. It must hold both America and Russia to their most conscientious positions. And above all, the UN must bring al-Assad and his henchmen to the bar of international justice. Because the tiny voice in each of us is crying out for justice, and for mercy, for the people of Syria.