圣雄甘地，当一个崇拜他、奉承他的公众问及他认为最大的罪是什么时，他倾向于尽可能简单、迅速地回答。当然，他的回答因人而异，但在他的自传《我用真理做实验的故事》(The Story of My experiment with Truth)中，他把最大的罪恶描述为“没有个性的知识”。甘地显然认为，拥有知识而没有行动的能力，可能是人类犯下的最大罪行。当然，人们肯定会对任何知识持有者都应该承担的道德责任感到好奇。首先，这一声明强烈暗示了绝对的伦理体系的存在，没有给伦理相对主义留下任何空间，这一立场几乎没有留下辩论的余地，关于各种不同标签的人所归为自己的不同的伦理和道德标准。此外，当今学术界出现的一个相当有趣的现象是愚蠢学者的存在;一个拥有丰富知识的人，却对这些知识的实际用途知之甚少，也不知道别人会把这些知识用于什么用途。这份声明必然要求这个人对任何使用或滥用他的研究和知识的行为负责，这种思想不仅明显是幼稚的，而且明显是不公正的。然而，剩下的是故意和集中的滥用和滥用知识，完全和完全理解这种滥用所导致的任何结局;在任何伦理体系下，这都必须受到惩罚，但剩下的问题是，哪种伦理体系?一个人如何调和伦理相对主义系统的想法和这个声明提出的普遍专制系统的需求.
Mahatma Gandhi, when asked by an adoring, adulating public, what he believed the greatest sins were, was prone to answer as simply and as quickly as possible. His answers varied, of course, depending on his audience, but in his last word to all of India, his autobiography, “The Story of My Experiments with Truth,” he characterized the greatest sin as “Knowledge without character.” Gandhi evidently believed that the possession of knowledge without the ability for action was perhaps the greatest sin man could commit. Of course, one must wonder a great number of things about the ethical responsibility that any wielder of knowledge is supposedly subject to. To begin with, the statement strongly implies the existence of an absolute ethical system, leaving no place for ethical relativism, a stance that leaves little room for debate on the varying ethical and moral standards that people of various different labels ascribe to themselves. Moreover, a rather interesting phenomenon that occurs in the academic world today is the existence of the foolish scholar; the man who harbors a veritable cornucopia of knowledge, but has little understanding of the practical aspects thereof, or of the use that other humans might put this knowledge to. The statement necessarily requires that this man be held responsible for any use or abuse of his research and knowledge, a thought that is not merely of obvious naiveté, but plainly unjust. What remains however, is the wilful and focused abuse and misuse of knowledge with the complete and total understanding of any ending that this misuse entails; this must, under any ethical system, be punished, but the question that remains is, which ethical system? How can one reconcile the idea of an ethically relativistic system and the demand of a universally absolutist system that the statement puts forth