Why we do what we do is a mystery. Some say it’s about rational “self interest.” Others say, “A gene made me do it.” It’s not my fault. I have the alcoholic gene, the gambling gene, the hetero-sexual gene, the obesity gene.

In other words, it’s not my fault. Hereditary, made me this way. Never having heard of James Watson, and the Gnome project our ancestors settled for the word “fate.”

Still others say it’s the “animal” in us.. This last century we tried to blame it on the unconscious, but that has fallen out of vogue. Freud ain’t what she used to be.

“Peer pressure” is big. “Hey, everyone does it, so what’s the big deal.” I’ll never forget the arguments regarding drugs, drinking, sex, and teen agers up here in St. Helena. Those younger than me always said, “Hey, we did it. What are ya’ gonna say (to your kids)?”

They never believed me when I said, “No. We didn’t do it.” Not that we were saints, or without sin. Just that there truly did exist a time when high school athletes did not drink en masse. There’s a big difference between a couple of dozen kids in a high school of 300 drinking, and 80% hitting the bottle regularly.

Sex falls under the same banner. Like the poor, it will always be with us. But whether it is more prevalent today at younger ages seems obvious. Or maybe I’m just the typical old fuddy-duddy who thinks things were always better, “back in the day.”

Kant, of course, was the one who got it right. He used a terrible term “the Categorical Imperative,” but it summed up a truly righteous; way of thinking .

He said there were three states of consciousness. The shop keeper who stole, exhibited first degree egoism. Benefiting only one’s own pocketbook, was the lowest level of consciousness.

The shop keeper who was honest because it was good for business was not virtuous. He was only doing what benefitted him, not what benefitted mankind in general. This “second degree egoism” was hardly virtuous.

The shop keeper who was honest— not because it was good for business--but just because it was right to be honest—was a man who had reached a level of consciousness that others weren’t even aware existed. This was Categorical Imperative—an ugly term for a beautiful state of mind

Now we have all known people who were virtuous, kind, or simply plain honest, even though there was nothing in it for them. They know something we don’t. The literally “live” the Categorical Imperative.

The rest of us tend to work the angles. “What’s in it for me?” “How can I get the upper hand?” How will “they” think of me if I do this--or do that? When one is going through these machinations, he is exhibiting second degree egoism. And perhaps weighing the risk/reward ratio of indulging in first degree egoism. Theft.

Without using the term “Categorical Imperative” churches try to get us to do the right thing. Of course they bribe and cajole us with the “God is watching” gambit. Or, “your conscience knows” guilt trip.

Clearly, I don’t know but I doubt Kant was in to that. It appears that like most thinkers, he was simply trying to figure out what made the “most sense.” Call it happiness, call it a “clear conscience,” call it a full filled life—whateve--he seemed to know that some things worked and some thinks didn’t.

When one grows up in the country and then spends some time in the city, he is constantly amazed at how often country folk act out Kant’s Categorical Imperative, without giving it a second thought. In fact, were one to mention it, they’d probably think he were just to use “big words.” To them it is no big deal.

The Goobs and I noticed this on our last trips to Rwanda and China. People get it. People are honest. Most people who have far less material things than we Americans do, wouldn’t think of working an angle to take advantage of either a neighbor or a situation.

That is not to say there aren’t “gangs” everywhere, who would do anything to get ahead. That is what causes strife—especially in less “advanced” countries. In their world, might makes right and there is not the enforcement of contracts, nor an independent judiciary to even the playing field.

This is why we have such problems understanding other cultures. With the possible exception of the inner cities, we are not used to naked force dictating behavior. We assume most people will “do the right thing,” –naturally.

When resources are plentiful, they do. If they are in short supply, “might makes right.” ‘Twas always, thus.

(‘ll never forget my daughter losing her camera in Mexico. She was distraught. I told her, “People don’t’ steal.” The next day we returned to the village and “voila”—there was the camera—saved for us.

Assuming folks aren’t starving or battling for resources, The Categorical Imperative is actually the natural state.

Now that land is limited in Napa and scarcity creates value, you can see that up here, not only is Second Degree Egoism the modus operandi je jure, there’s a huge temptation to opt for First Degree Egoism, as well.

As citizens we may be in danger of losing, if not our birthright, at least our culture. So rather than asking for “Whom the Bell tolls,” ask “Is this for your benefit, mine--or the greater good of all?” The answer will speak volumes.