[520] Now the question is: What can we say about this refined and almost demonic theory? There are several arguments which show its weakness. One of these arguments is the relation of the upper class within itself, where there are imperatives which cannot be derived in the SAME way, but which are absolutely valid for the ruling group---where does the validity of these rules come in the ruling

group? And the second, the validity of some rules even in the revolutionary groups---for instance the criminal groups, who fight against society and its laws, which do not accept THESE laws but accept OTHER laws---where does the moral imperative^a of fair play in a gang, in a criminal gang, come from? Now all these questions show that the relativism of the contents, to which I come later, does not prejudice against the absolutism of the demand itself. And this distinction is decisive. The moral command comes from the unconditional character of the moral imperative itself, no matter what contents it has. The contents are changing---and the question of something ultimate is a question we have discussed too---but first we must acknowledge that the changing contents does not hurt the unconditional character of the form of the moral imperative itself. How can it be unconditional^b? Why is EVERY person DESTROYED if it doesn't accept the unconditional character of those norms which it accepts, even the norms of a gang?

Because in the moral imperative^c, the person becomes person. This means: its essential being is affirmed by the acceptance of the moral imperative which, by this very fact, becomes unconditional. Now what does unconditional ^dmean? There is no condition by which you can escape a moral demand which you have accepted as such. If you don't accept it, then of course the situation