Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D.

Here.

Legal Obligation does not concern itself with disposition, which does not matter to it so long as the action is performed. But in the case of ethical Obligation, the impulsive ground must be an inner one; the action must be done because it is proper that it should be done. We must, for instance, pay our debts not because we can be compelled but because it is right that we should.

(Immanuel Kant, Lectures on Ethics, trans. Louis Infield, The Library of Religion and Culture, ed. Benjamin Nelson [New York: Harper & Row, 1963 (first published in 1930)], 48)

U.K. (1978).

To the Editor:

In “A Migration Juggernaut Is Headed for Europe” (Economic Scene, Sept. 16), Eduardo Porter makes a persuasive economic argument for Europe to be more welcoming to immigrants fleeing Africa and the Middle East instead of erecting barriers and fences to those escaping. But there is also the moral argument.

Recalling the Holocaust, one of its survivors, Henny Wenkart, a child at the time, was quoted a while ago in The Los Angeles Times as saying: “What people don’t understand is that at the beginning, you could get out. But nobody would let us in. Everyone could’ve been saved. Everyone.”

Morality is always easier, and clearer, in retrospect, but that’s not when it’s needed. It was needed then, at the time. And it is needed now.

IRA GLASSER

New York

The writer was executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union from 1978 to 2001.

Note from KBJ: How many people will you be taking in, Mr Glasser? Put your money where your mouth is.

Here.

Here.

[I]t will be difficult for a person to find a systematic method for ethics which will just fit his particular set of ethical commitments, which will permit him to believe just the ethical propositions he already accepts. One can find an ethical method which will support some or even many of one's ethical convictions. But whichever systematic method one picks, one will probably find it is incompatible with some of one's ethical beliefs.

(Richard B. Brandt, Ethical Theory: The Problems of Normative and Critical Ethics, Prentice-Hall Philosophy Series, ed. Arthur E. Murphy [Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1959], 260 [italics in original])

To the Editor:

During the two Republican debates Wednesday night, it became very clear who the winners, the losers and the whiner were. I think that the clear winners in the later debate were Rand Paul, Scott Walker and Carly Fiorina. In the early debate it was George Pataki. These four Republican candidates for president kept their cool and, more important, their dignity. All the rest stumbled, were off balance and were confusing to listen to.

In Donald Trump’s case, it was much more serious. He was a bully and not accurate in his comments. Mr. Paul calmly answered Mr. Trump’s insults with good, clear answers and had a grip on reality. Mr. Walker stayed on point and was clear and objective. Ms. Fiorina was cool and nailed Mr. Trump with the comment about all women understanding what he meant when he criticized her looks. Mr. Pataki was intelligent and clear as to his plans if elected.

The big whiner was Mr. Trump. He got angry and made rude replies when confronted about his record. Do we think that he can get along with Vladimir V. Putin? Of course not. “Would you feel comfortable with Donald Trump’s finger on the nuclear codes?” the moderator Jake Tapper asked. No, no, no!

TOM KING

Shaftsbury, Vt.

Note from KBJ: Tom King is as crazy as Rand Paul.

Here.

Here.