[WS:] My problem is of a different kind, namely that of absolute principles.
Take for example the principle of not taking a life. If applied unconditionally, it would require that one not only would have to take an anti-abortion stance - which I oppose - but it would lead to absurd consequences of contributing to more loss of life under certain circumstances (the quintessential war on the Nazis.) In reality, this principle is conditional, although different groups attach different conditionalities to it - from vegetarians who draw the line at killing animals (but not plants) to pacifists who draw the line at killing people, to the pro-choices that draw that line at humans after birth, and to death penalty supporter who draw that line at humans following the "narrow path."
Ditto for the power of state - if we deny the state the power to execute people who pose a threat to society, how can we defend the power of the state to launch a defensive action against confirmed threat (like the Nazis) or for that matter take away (nationalize) their property on the same principle.
I think it is a general weakness of the Kantian categorical imperative - I would not want any rule of behavior to become a universal principle.
The best I can come up with is that every principle or rule is conditional, and that conditionally is socially constructed. We cannot escape that. All we can hope for is that this social construction process is always subject to debate, criticism and re-negotiation.
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."