Suppose you see a drowning child in a pond and there is no one else around except you. You want to save the child, but you know you cannot swim. And there is no other means other than swimming in the pond for you to help the child.

What would Kant do in this situation? How can the Categorical Imperative can be used in this situation?

  • I made some edits which you may roll back or continue editing. Welcome to this SE! – Frank Hubeny Nov 21 '18 at 23:02
  • 2
    Is this HW? Please describe the context of the assignment, and present your own thoughts on the matter in the post. – Conifold Nov 21 '18 at 23:34
  • Why can't you swim? Is it completely impossible for some reason? Or is it just that you never bothered to learn how? – Bread Nov 22 '18 at 0:22
  • It is just a situation given to us by our professor. – Lucky Marco Nov 22 '18 at 0:56
  • Google for "ought implies can Kant" and you will find plenty of material needed to answer this on undergraduate level. – Philip Klöcking Nov 22 '18 at 7:36

To save the child would be an imperfect duty. Which is logical and acceptable. But while saving the child, if that person died, then the guardian or parent of the child would be guilty of murder. This is because it follows a categorical imperative which says certain precautions should have been taken where this situation would not have happened.

If you do not know how to swim then it is not your duty to save the child by jumping in but rather some other way. I only remember this from studying Kant in an online ethics class.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.