As we have seen in the previous section, Kant's theory is deceptively simple to express: the only acceptable moral rules are those that can be followed by every rational agent. However, this very general moral rule (the categorical imperative) is not that easy to apply. In some cases, the generalization of an immoral rule results in a clear impossibility or contradiction. But in other cases, the generalization does not put ourselves in a contradictory situation and an extra element is needed for ruling out some rules that Kant consider inmoral.
A distinction is needed between:
Perfect moral obligations.
Imperfect moral obligations.
Consider this situation: I am taking an exam and I need some extra "help". Is it morally acceptable to use my mobile phone for looking the answers while taking the exam? In other words: Is it morally acceptable to cheat? Can a person cheat when he really needs to pass an exam?
Maybe our moral intuition already tell us the answer, but we can apply Kant's categorical imperative in order to have a clear reason: What if every student cheated? What if every rational being (teachers included) cheated? Exams would become useless as an evaluation tool, so there would be no written exams and therefore we could not cheat in them anymore. Generalizing our initial rule "It is morally acceptable to cheat in an exam" put ourselves in a contradictory situation. So it is not a moral rule. The opposite is: we must not cheat. We have the moral obligation of not cheating.
This is an example of a perfect moral obligation: every rational being will agree that we all have the moral obligation of not cheating in exams. Cheating is only possible if some people (but not all of us) cheat when taking an exam.
Now consider another situation: your classmate asks you to share with her your lunch because she has left hers behind. You may share your lunch for many motives: because you like her, because she shared her lunch with you yesterday, because you are not very hungry, etc. On the other hand, you may be tempted to refuse her request also for many motives: you are very hungry, you do not like her very much, she did not help you in the past, etc.
So we want to know if there is a moral obligation to share our lunch with a classmate that has no lunch or, on the other hand, there is no such moral obligation.
Let's apply Kant's theory:
What if everyone shared its lunch with a classmate in need? There is no contradiction in that. The world would be a nicer place to live in, full of generous people ready to help those in need.
What if everyone refused to share its lunch with a person in need? It is clear that if everyone refuses to share, there is no way that some people take advantage of others by asking for a part of their lunch but not sharing their own lunches. But what if everyone prefer not to ask favors when they leave their lunch at home? What if everyone prefers not to share lunches? None is taking advantage of anyone. Maybe you would not like to live in such an unkind world, but there is no contradiction in that either.
So, according to what we know of Kant's way of reasoning, if there is no contradiction in generalizing either alternative, then both are possible and therefore there is no moral obligation. The same reasoning can be applied to any situation in which you are asked to help someone. As long as you are not planning to benefit from the help of other people and not returning the favor, there is no contradiction.
The same reasoning could be applied to other situations as long as none is taking advantage of the rest of us:
I am not paying taxes because I will never ask for the help of the goverment.
I am not helping my classmates because I will never ask for their help.
I am not saving energy because I will never complain of the blackouts.
But a world where nobody helps anybody is not a world in which humans can live. Maybe self-sufficient rational beings can live in a world like that. But human beings need the help of other people: from the moment we are born we need the help of our parents. And we are social animals, we live in societies where cooperation is necessary. Therefore, Kant concludes that for human beings, helping each other is a moral obligation. But cooperation is an imperfect obligation because:
It is not an obligation for every rational agent. Self-sufficient rational beings are not morally obliged to help each other. It is a moral obligation for human beings but maybe not for robots, artificial intelligences, extraterrestial rational lifeforms, angels and gods, etc.
It is not an obligation that we, human beings, have to fulfill every time. We are not morally obliged to help everybody that ask for our help. We have to adapt ourselves to the particular details of the situation. We should help other people as long as the situation allows it.
While perfect moral obligations are clearly defined, imperfect ones are fuzzy and imprecise. It is not possible to define when, where and how much we should help each other. Depending on the situation, we may be morally obliged or we may not. And although the decision should be taken using our reason, that may not always produce clear and universal answers.
Consider the following obligations and:
Classify each obligation as perfect or imperfect. Give reasons for your decision. For imperfect obligations, propose some criteria for deciding when we should fulfill it and when we are not morally obliged to do so.
To donate blood.
Keep our promises.
Make our best effort when doing our job.
Help other people with their problems.
Reducing my water consumption so we all have water in the summer.