Answer for Law and Justice1:

Q 1: What is your opinion? Do you think that sometimes people have to compromise with
even the most high-sounding and universally accepted principles?
A: As per Immanuel Kants opinion, the element of trust keeping inter-se individuals must be
the universal law, as, if the subjects (Individuals) had treated them as mere maxims, it would
erode the essence of promise and thus promises would be nothing but a thin sheet of ice.
However, he further explains the contours of promises or truth telling within the domain of
imperatives, namely that it must be clear, be it specific terms or non specific terms, crux being
that the other party should not be left in dismay anticipating that the promise would be
performed.
It is in light of this explanation, one can understand as to why Sir Stafford Cripps behaved in the
way he did.
Firstly, it is true that for the applicability of categorical imperative, it is necessary that, there
are certain standards which we want others to act, as we would like to be entertained
being confronted with a similar situation.
However, for understanding what constitutes these certain standards we want others to
act, reference has to be made to the reasoning of Immanuel Kant, that,
Man is free and that his moral conviction is brought about by inner reasoning rather than by
external forces,
Thus, it is from within that a person has to decide as to what actions he would perform. These
actions set the stage for others when we apply the doctrine of categorical imperative.
What Sir Kant further explains is that we should behave in a manner which is unreservedly
good and this is good derives its authority from the good will.
However a major panacea which arises is to understand from what source does good will derive
its functionality, is it personal convictions or something else?
To answer this, Sir Kant, says, Actions performed out of a sense of duty are those which we
can confidently say are motivated by goodwill.
So, in order to put categorical imperative into practice, the original source has to be the
duty, as, it is from duty that goodwill can be derived, which becomes the source for our
actions and consequently sets the acting stage for others to follow which in cumulative effect
would be the universal law.
1 Mohit Prasad; 21537.

So, prime concern has to be, What duty are talking about?
Looking at the case study attached with question, Sir Stafford Cripps had two sources of duty;
One which obligated him with the position of chancellor and second where truth seeking, in
what Sir Kant, might say, ought means can, be the source of duty.
It the glass/spectacles which one puts, that decides whether Sir Cripps was justified in his action.
Conclusion:
Thus, answering the primary question, whether people have to compromise with the most
high sounding and universally accepted principle?
In authors point of view, yes they have to compromised, as although on the face of it,
categorical imperative is based on the unconditional base, still Sir Kant, explains that, as far
as it is clear from specific terms or non specific terms that an action will be performed the
way it has been performed, it will not amount to deviation from the categorical imperative.
Like in the case study, Sir Cripps did not have the discretion to act in any other way than the way
he did, as if one looks the source of duty as the position of chancellor, any other act would
have resulted in anarchy and disorder; thus it was clear in non specific terms as what any
other person in the same position would have done.
However if one desires to choose the Idealists as the source of duty, still keeping regard to
the chaos and disorder which otherwise would have occurred had Sir Cripps not acted in the
way he did, it was in Non Specific terms clear as to what anyone in the similar position
would have done.
Thus when one understands categorical imperative, one needs to understand that the
Unconditionality attached to it is not in terms of applicability, but rather in terms that
receiving end party is not at the deceited end, until and unless the receiving end party is
clear be it in Specific Terms or Non Specific Terms as to how they would have acted in
a similar situation, it will tantamount to the conformity of the categorical imperative.
Thus, Kant is Logically Correct.