Categorical Imperatives and Duty

       After arguing that the lone categorical imperative is to “act in only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law,” Kant lays out four commonly thought of duties to show how they fit this defined categorical imperative. His first three examples (on suicide, lending money, and the cultivation of talent) appear to fit in Kant’s categorical imperative framework. However, his fourth example appears flawed, and I will argue that certain cases prove that assisting others in need cannot conform to Kant’s categorical imperative like his other three examples.

       Kant writes “I shall take nothing from him (person in need), nor even envy him; only I do not care to contribute to his welfare or to his assistance in need.” Kant acknowledges that “if such a way of thinking were to become a universal law the human race could admittedly very well exist.” To get around this argument, Kant argues that if individuals followed this duty of not helping others, humans would rob themselves of all hope of getting assistance in the future.

       This argument assumes all humans will eventually need or will want some form of assistance when they are in need. Individuals in need may turn down assistance for a multitude of reasons including, pride and wanting to pull oneself up to not wanting to be a burden on others. While I sympathize for those who feel this way, I do not think it is an irrational belief. Extreme examples of poverty or danger that involve life and death may have less examples of individuals who live by this philosophy, but I do think Kant underestimates the pride that can exist in humans who want to save themselves. For this reason, I do not believe assisting others can be a duty in the same sense that not committing suicide, not paying back loans, and not cultivating talent are duties.