By explaining his views, Kant gives several examples, and one of them is a false promise. His conclusion is that social elements should not make false or deceitful promises and cannot consistently desire these promises for everyone, as this violates the obligation to treat people as individuals. Kant calls such obligations perfect. As follows from this term, they are absolute.
From the point of view of the first form of the categorical imperative, individuals have a perfect duty not to do what could not even exist and are unthinkable as a universal practice. Using the second form of the categorical imperative, people have a perfect duty not to do anything that violates the requirement to treat individuals as ends in them.
However, some duties are more flexible, and Kant calls them imperfect. From my point of view, an individual does not always have to choose perfect duties in a conflict of interest. In order to consider the conflict of duties in more detail, it is necessary to give an example, namely selfishness. Ethical selfishness is the view that a person can rightfully pursue only his own interests and help others.
The imperfect duty is not to be selfish but to help people for their good. When exactly to help others and how to do it is a matter of choice. There is a certain amount of flexibility, and one implication of this view is that there is no absolute obligation to give one’s whole life away to help others. A performer is also a person. Therefore, he has the moral right to act in his own interests.
Thus, according to Kant’s theory, avoiding selfishness appears to be an imperfect obligation. The distinction between perfect and imperfect duties will have implications for resolving conflicts between different duties. Perfect duties prevail over imperfect ones; an individual cannot help one by violating the rights of others.