The debate concerning Kant's position on welfare is ongoing. Nevertheless, a significant consensus seems to be forming that Kant justifies provision of welfare as a juridical, rather than ethical obligation. Among supporters of this view, however, there is disagreement about how Kant justifies such an obligation. The paper will examine several interpretations of Kant's justification of the public provision of welfare and their relations to corresponding ethical obligations, such as that of beneficence. The aim is to identify the philosophically most convincing account of justification and some of its implications.
