Another more obvious problem with the first step of the categorical imperative is the black and white nature of the world according to Kant. It simplifies morality to an extreme extent with no room for discussion. For example, Kant believes that suicide is wrong, no matter what, because if this were to become a universal law, "one would immediately [see] a contradiction in a system of nature whose law would destroy life by means of the same feeling acting in way to stimulate the promotion of life, and therefore there could be no existence as a system of nature" (Kant, Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, 31). However, suppose there is a case where a rich person has plenty of food and a poor person, on the verge of starvation, has none at all. Is it really morally wrong for that person to take food? Can you really say that this person did a bad thing, when they did it to try to survive, and not at anyone's expense? According to Kant, yes, this man had a moral failure, and therefore I argue that Kant changed the structure of what morality is, inventing his own rules about what is ethical without regard for other people's thoughts and opinions in different situations. from his. Kant seems to deny the possibility of alternative points of view and that some situations are much more difficult to deal with morally than others, as in the case of the greater