First, consider the view provided by Immanuel Kant in which he derives our moral obligations or “maxims” by means of willingness and rational universal application: “I ought never act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim [(duty or guiding principle)] should become a universal law” (Kant 4:402). If we then consider a maxim to never help people then such a world is certainly plausible, but isn’t rationally desirable. Kant would then say that our duty to help others is an imperfect one: we ought to fulfill this duty, but only sometimes—not necessarily all the time. It seems that there is, perhaps, a tad bit off irrationality to donating a significant portion …show more content…
Acting for our own welfare or in maximizing our self-interest may be alright with devoting a significant portion of our income—but what if, in effect, this deters our ability to maximize the benefit of our own well-being or welfare? The usefulness of this significant sum to be donated is blurred by where else it could be used to improve our well-being, or in other words, where this sum would be better suited in satisfying our self-interests or