Filozofija i drustvo 2022 Volume 33, Issue 3, Pages: 585-600
https://doi.org/10.2298/FID2203585R
Full text (
294 KB)
Cited by
Kant’s moral theory as a guide in philanthropy
Radovanović Bojana 
(University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy and Social Theory), radovanovic@instifdt.bg.ac.rs
This paper focuses on Kant’s moral theory and how it can guide our actions in
philanthropy. Philanthropy is usually defined as a voluntary action aimed at
relieving suffering and improving the quality of lives of others. It has
been argued that, within the framework of Kant’s theory, it is our duty to
be beneficent, sacrificing a part of our welfare for others. The duty of
beneficence is a wide one. Interpreters of Kant disagree on what the wide
duty of beneficence requires. While a few argue that it only requires that
we provide help sometimes, others hold that the duty of beneficence should
be seen as more demanding, particularly in cases of emergency when help is
urgently required. We are morally obliged to promote the happiness of
others, but the duty of beneficence does not tell us whose happiness and how
much of our resources to give. Other than emergency cases, in fulfilling the
duty of beneficence, we can prioritize the ends of those near and dear to us
who concern us more. Moreover, on condition that we are not indifferent to
others, it is morally permissible to prioritize our ends. Finally, the paper
argues that it is not always straightforward what kind of action is required
in helping someone in need, and that beneficence in Kantian terms is not
limited to the philanthropic sector.
Keywords: Kant’s moral theory, duty of beneficence, philanthropy
Show references
Beauchamp, Tom (2019), “The Principle of Beneficence in Applied Ethics”, in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (internet) available at:
Bekkers, Rene (2014), “Philanthropic Studies: Two Historical Examples”, (internet) available at: https://renebekkers.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/philanthropic-studies-two-historical-examples/ (viewed 16 May, 2021).
Bierhoff, Hans-Werner (2002), Prosocial Behaviour, London: Psychology Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Blum, Laurence (1980), Friendship, Altruism and Morality, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Cummiskey, David (1990), “Kantian Consequentialism”, Ethics 100 (3): 586-615.
Donagan, Alan (1977), The Theory of Morality, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Driver, Julia (2007), Ethics: The Fundamentals, Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Formosa, Paul; Sticker, Martin (2019), “Kant and the Demandingness of the Virtue of Beneficence”, European Journal of Philosophy 18 (1): 625-642.
Green, Joshua (2013), Moral Tribes, London: Altantic Books.
Herman, Barbara (1981), “On the Value of Acting from the Motive of Duty”, The Philosophical Review 90 (3): 359-382.
Herman, Barbara (1984), “Mutual Aid and Respect for Persons”, Ethics 94 (4): 577-602.
Herman, Barbara (1993), The Practice of Moral Judgement, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Herman, Barbara (2001), “The Scope of Moral Requirement”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (3): 227-256.
Herman, Barbara (2007), Moral Literacy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Henson, Richard (1979), “What Kant Might Have Said: Moral Worth and the Overdetermination of Dutiful Action”, The Philosophical Review 88 (1): 39-54.
Hill, Thomas (2018), “Duties and Choices in Philanthropic Giving”, in Paul Woodruff (ed.), The Ethics of Giving: Philosophers’ Perspectives on Philanthropy, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition, pp. 13-39.
Kant, Immanuel (1996), The Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1997), Critique of Practical Reason, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, Immanuel (1998), Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Korsgaard, Christine (1983), “Two Distinctions in Goodness”, Philosophical Review 92: 169-195.
MacAskill, William (2015), Doing Good better: How Effective Altruism Can Help You Make a Difference, New York: Gotham Books.
O’Neill, Onora (2007), “Kantian Approaches to Some Famine Problems”, in Russell Shafer-Landau (ed.), Ethical Theory: An Anthology, Sussex: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 549-551.
O’Neill, Onora (2013), Acting on Principle: An Essay on Kantian Ethics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Payton, Robert; Moody, Michael (2008), Understanding Philanthropy: Its Meaning and Mission, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Pinheiro Walla, Alice (2015), “Kant’s Moral Theory and Demandingness”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (4): 731-743.
Schneewind, Jerome Borges (1992), “Autonomy, Obligation and Virtue: An Overview of Kant’s Moral Philosophy”, in Paul Guyer (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Kant, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309-342.
Shell, Susan Meld (2016), “Kant on Citizenship, Society and Redistributive Justice”, in Andrea Fagion, Alessandro Pinzani, Nuria Sánchez Madrid (eds.), Kant and Social Policies, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1-24.
Singer, Peter (1972), “Famine, Affluence and Morality”, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (3): 229-243.
Singer, Peter (2009), The Life You Can Save: How to Play Your Part in Ending World Poverty, London: Picador.
Singer, Peter (2015), The Most Good You Can Do, New York: Yale University Press.
Stocker, Michael (1976), “The Schizophrenia of Modern Ethical Theories”, Journal of Philosophy 73 (14): 453-466.
Stohr, Karen (2011), “Kantian Beneficence and the Problem of Obligatory Aid”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (1): 45-67.
Sulek, Marty (2010a), “On the Modern Meaning of Philanthropy”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39 (2): 193-212.
Sulek, Marty (2010b), “On the Classical Meaning of Philanthrôpía”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 39 (3): 385-408.
Timmermann, Jens (2005), “Good but not Required”, Journal of Moral Philosophy 2 (1): 9-27.
Wood, Allen (1999), Kant’s Ethical Thought, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, Karen (2002), “Generosity versus Altruism: US vs. UK”, in Michael Moody, Beth Breeze (eds.), The Philanthropy Reader, London: Routledge, pp. 125-129.