Midwinter mailbag

Taylor Swift's categorical imperative and what's up with the $400?

Not a lot of sunlight these days — gloomy!

For more good cheer, though, here’s a bit of good housing news out of Worcester and what seems like a worthwhile Canadian housing initiative. An expanded Child Tax Credit seems to still be in the legislative mix, it looks like someone found a potentially promising Alzheimer’s treatment, and scientists have maybe identified the cause of morning sickness, which could pave the way for a treatment down the road. Pretty good!

Let’s gather round the warmth of Mailbag answers as we await the solstice and glower in envy at our friends in the southern hemisphere.

JHW: You've claimed before that Kant is right that the formulations of the categorical imperative are equivalent. What's the basis for this view?

The issue Kant is dealing with is that language is slippery. He wants to have a categorical imperative, a single sentence that explains the grounding of ethics. But sentences are ambiguous. What does it mean to treat people as an end? What does it mean to act only on a universalizeable maxim? These phrases are open to interpretation. By giving us three different formulations and then telling us they are equivalent, Kant is offering an interpretative guide. He’s letting us know that if you are seeing the formulations as non-equivalent, you’re not interpreting them correctly.

Nicholas Sooy: Should Democrats give the GOP what it wants (such as agreeing to the provisions of HR2) on the border in exchange for Ukraine and Israel aid? Reducing irregular immigration would probably help Biden beat Trump, and funding Ukraine seems like such an important priority that this seems like a possible win-win.

We got several versions of this question this week, and in theory I agree. To the extent that you can do a bipartisan border crackdown and a bipartisan Ukraine aid bill, that’s good, and it’s worth ruffling some feathers amongst the immigration groups for.