[521] is different---if it is changing, as ethics are changing, as everything cultural is changing, when it is different---but in the moment in which in these changing contents you ACCEPT something, then it is UNconditional.^a Here I want to say a word against naturalistic attempts generally, to derive the moral imperative.^b I have already accepted all the relativism possible---and this is not a point of

discussion, with the naturalists---but the point of DISCUSSION with them is the unconditional character. Take a naturalist^c who denies the unconditional character of the ethical imperative, WHATEVER THE CONTENT MAY BE. In which attitude does he deny this? In the attitude of the scholar, the philosopher or scientist, who seeks for truth and who seeks HONESTLY for truth. Tell one of these naturalists that he will get a higher pay---if such a thing every [sic.] would happen!---if he DENIES his naturalism. Then the following happens: the temptation is certainly there; he would know that from the moment on in which he would change his ethical theory for the sake of a better social position, he would deny what is usually called his integrity, he would give up his honesty. That means: in maintaining his naturalistic relativism, he applies the absolute categorical imperatives of honesty and integrity. If he DOESN'T---which is quite possible---he would destroy himself because from this moment on,

he would say what he says with bad conscience, and on this basis his self-affirmation as personality would go to pieces. There are of course many escape-mechanisms, compromises, rationalizations--- I don't need to go into that now. But THEY ARE ONLY NECESSARY because the fundamental principle is valid, otherwise no escape-mechanism would be used at all, if we make such a decision. So the honest naturalist, who is willing to become a martyr in an extreme situation for his relativistic