I love Immanuel Kant's work. In particular, I have always appreciated his thoughts on morality. His emphasis on duty to others and motivation as a critical factor in moral action resonate with me. But most importantly, his is a theory of universal moral law.

I always get a little uneasy when I see the word 'relativity' in theories of morality. I just start to worry about the extended possibilities for grey area. And we all know that our devious brains will take grey area and run with it.

Sure, it's *usually* wrong to do that, but...

Kant doesn't leave that room for grey area, and I like that. For those of you who aren't familiar with Kant's categorical imperative:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

It's simple. If you want to know whether an action is moral, just ask yourself if a reasonable individual would will that action to be universal law.

It makes sense, too. Infidelity? You wouldn't want your spouse to cheat on you. You wouldn't want everybody's spouse to cheat... Marriage would be even worse off than it is now.

I think, more or less, I have adopted this moral theory. But I recently got to thinking about an argument I had in the past with a friend about the nature (or lack thereof) of 'altruism'.

According to Kant, it should be a no-brainer. 'Should I show generosity to others, without the direct expectation for reciprocation?' It's certainly the case that a society purely composed of altruists is reasonably desirable.

But here is the thing about pure altruism. There's only two ways that it can work and persist in a population.

The first is obvious. If every person in a society is altruistic, each person in that society will gain the benefits. This is certainly the ideal, and notably the scenario assumed when thinking in the context of Kant's theory.

But what happens when it's not the case that every individual is altruistic? What if there were a society in which some people were just selfish? (I know... Inconceivable, right?)

This brings the second scenario in which altruism can persist in a society. The net benefit of altruistic acts *cannot* be in favor of the selfish individuals. This is important, because if the selfish individuals receive the most benefit from altruism while simultaneously contributing the least to the system, selfishness will flourish and altruism will eventually die.

The question then becomes this: How does a society make sure that the net benefit of altruistic acts stays in favor of altruists?

It's actually simple and interestingly enough, it's (typically) the natural disposition of an altruist. Selfish individuals that take advantage of altruism without reciprocating must eventually be excluded from future altruistic acts.

And therein lies the dissonance I'm facing. Altruism is certainly good for humanity. It's good for the group, and ultimately it's good for the indivual. But in order for altruism to exist, there has to be a grey area. Altruists have to be able to apply judgment as to whom they act generously toward, or else altruism itself is at risk.

But this violates Kant's moral law. A categorical imperative is just that- it's binding by duty and there is no room to negotiate. "If I want... then I should...." statements are hypothetical imperatives, and Kant explicitly denies their moral validity.

I just can't seem to come to an internal resolution with this...

What are your thoughts?