However, Kant does not speak of perfect and imperfect moral .
duties, those duties that respectively do or do not involve qualifications as to .
the particulars of the situation at hand, thus complicating the issue.
Several objections can be raised to the theory Kant sets forth, but each .
of them seems to stem from the thought that the theory cannot account for .
all actions and situations. Certain moral duties, for instance, are brought .
about by relying on more than just the Categorical Imperative and process of .
universalization, specifically on the subjective definitions of certain terms .
and ideas about what is and is not and of itself moral. Also, one might say .
that in some situations a maxim that can be universalized is still not morally .
permissible, while one that cannot be universalized is indeed permissible. In .
all these situations though, it seems at least somewhat possible to lessen .
the objection by taking a closer look at the situation, perhaps by changing or .
reexamining the maxims behind it.
An example of one of these moral duties not derived entirely from the .
Categorical Imperative is that of the "rugged individualist" who refuses to .
help as much as he refuses to be helped. The universalization applicable in .
this situation relies on the assumption that not helping is definitely immoral, .
which may or may not necessarily be true. This rugged individualist seems .
to follow a maxim to the effect of "I should refuse help and refuse to help." .
However, had the universalization of this maxim- 'everyone refuses help .
and refuses to be helped"- been followed by all people up to this point, .
society would not have been able to function, and because of that people .
would have been directly harmed, a fairly immoral result. Thus, it can be .
said that not helping is then not morally permissible. So, although the .
morality of not helping when help has always been refused may in and of .
itself be open to moral debate, the universal would be immoral as it still .
