Are humans obligated to better themselves?
From “Funlosophy”, a series of articles for a newsletter.
Stuck indoors, unable to leave our homes, a lot of people are taking up activities to keep themselves busy. This could be doing exercise to get or stay in shape, or hobbies such as learning a new language. These activities could be described as forms of self-improvement, working to make ourselves better in one way or another.
No-one is likely to describe this as anything but good, but is there a moral obligation to strive to improve ourselves?
It could be said that if we fail to develop ourselves, something valuable is going to waste. This could be called our ‘potential’.
Immanuel Kant believed in categorical moral imperatives: things are either universally right, or universally wrong. One such moral imperative was to not treat people as a means to an end, but as ends in themselves. This wasn’t limited to other people, but also to oneself.
He would argue that everyone has an obligation to better themselves, and to do our best at all times. Otherwise we’re treating ourselves as a means, and not an end – by not maximising the potential of being a conscious being, you are using your consciousness just as a means to satisfy baser needs.
Kant also thought the only way to make a better world is through self-improvement. He stated that we can never truly know if someone else is happy, whether they deserve to be happy, or how to make them happy. So, if we can’t improve others, to make a better world we have to improve ourselves, as it is only ourselves that we can have any certainty about. We’d then let this change ripple out into society. If we believe creating a better world is a moral obligation, then through this argument, self-improvement should be, too.
A number of philosophers have disagreed with Kant on these points.
Robert Paul Wolff dismissed his views on self-improvement simply as overly ‘moralistic’ – too rigid, and too morally judging of other people.
Others have argued morality deals with interactions between people, and so no-one can be immoral towards themself. From this point of view, spending an idle life devoid of development may still be viewed as robbing something from society, but takes the bite out of Kant’s argument of self-improvement as a duty to yourself.
Finally, the idea of self-improvement for the good of society feels problematic in its inherent egoism.
So, the lazy among us can relax knowing we can argue against Kant’s promotion of self-improvement as a moral obligation. That is, if you bothered reading this far, as learning about philosophy could definitely fall under bettering yourself.













