Principle of Right and Morality

Kant's categorical imperative is founded on the grounds of morality and treating people not merely as means. The principle of right, on the other hand, seems to have no moral foundation, but rather focuses on "the relations between the choice of the person of means and that of the one in need, and requires that provision be public rather than private"(285).

It appears that an "appropriate exercise of Kantian virtue" applies on the individual level, as individuals can be charitable and "make it their maxim to contribute to public schemes of provision," but the "Doctrine of Virtue" does not seem to apply in the same way to the state (283). The state's responsibility is to ensure that people have a rightful condition and are not dependent on the will of others. There is no moral obligation apparent.

My question is how and if the categorical imperative relates to the principle of right, and if states have a moral obligation in forming the general will, or only a procedural. Ripstein writes, "Although these powers are ultimately grounded in each person's innate right of humanity, they are internal requirements of a rightful condition and do not apply outside of one" (299).  Is it better that a state act from a morally neutral point-of-view in securing the rightful condition, or is it necessary that it consider humanity from a moral standpoint as well?