Recently, Jeff Sessions had to recuse himself from any investigation into charges that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. Mr. Sessions had failed to disclose two meetings he had with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, during the campaign. Mr. Sessions said under oath that he was “not aware of any of those activities.” Then, without prompting, he volunteered, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.” Mr. Sessions actually did meet with Mr. Kislyak twice during the time the election was going on.
I wonder if he recused himself because he honestly thought he had a duty to the American people to obey the law. Did he act from duty for the sake of it because it’s the right thing to do or was it motivated by some other inclination? Kant states, “For the maxim lacks for the moral import, namely, that such actions be done from duty, not from inclination. I have a feeling that Jeff Sessions did not recuse himself from the investigation because he had a moral duty, more rather that he saw people were starting to figure out what he had done and now he has to some how cover it up or distance himself from it. We could also test this against the universal law formulation. If everyone were to lie about communicating with Russia then it wouldn’t be a lie anymore and so therefor it is self-defeating and is impossible to do.