Abstract

The two best known objections to Kant's first defense of the duty of beneficence are examined and found to be fallacious. The first objection relies on the possibility of imagining an individual who would be willing for the maxim of nonbeneficence to be a universal law (but it fails to recognize that such an individual is not a rational person and thus not subject to morality at all); and the second objection, while granting the nonuniversalizability of the maxim of nonbeneficence, puts forth the maxim of “occasional” benefit in place of the maxim of beneficence as an alternative to the maxim of nonbeneficence (but it fails to recognize that the maxim of “occasional” benefit is disqualified by Kant's first moral principle)