Missile alarm and the categorical order

Actually, there are other justifications, two sides of the same coin: 1. The categorical imperative. If it were a general law, this is a criterion for this act itself to be our duty. 2. Here there is harm in that someone will die. I myself don't want that either. We don't just look at my morale, which is the direct benefit to me.

Understood. Thank you.

You wrote that there is an obligation to go to the shelter because of the categorical imperative, two questions occurred to me:
A. The categorical imperative is precisely when there are consequences for others? For example: If I am on a deserted island and there is an alarm, I know that my actions do not affect others - should I run to the shelter?
B. Apparently the categorical imperative can also be said about other things whose damage is minimal – If everyone crosses the road, someone will certainly get hurt in an accident, and therefore do not cross the road just as you would not want everyone to cross (after all, one will certainly get hurt).
I would love to know.
Thank you!

A. Absolutely. See columns 120, 122.
B. True, don't cross the road. But on the other hand, if no one crosses the road, we will all die of hunger and boredom. And besides, there are needs and interests.

Thanks for the response.
A. I understand from your words that the categorical imperative is essentially a definition of a moral act and has nothing to do with whether my act affects others or not, and therefore even in a situation where I am isolated I am obligated to act morally. The question, then, as a Jew who sees himself obligated to the laws of the Torah alone and to the halacha, and advocates that the only morality is what the halacha requires (both from the law and to avoid the hand of God) and what I believe is given from heaven (forget about whether you agree or not), can Kant's categorical imperative speak to me at all? Can it obligate me because it is a moral act? I hold a different system of morality. I would be happy to explain, the question here is mainly for the purpose of understanding things.
B. If there really are needs and interests because of which I am not necessarily supposed to not go out on the street, then then a person who has a need and interest also does not have to go to a shelter – he is currently studying Torah, going for a walk with his wife, watching a movie with friends.
I would be happy to understand!

A strange question. First, it is unrelated to the previous clarification. Second, you ask me: If I am not morally obligated, am I morally obligated? This collection of words does not add up to anything meaningful for me.

I have written here several times in the past that the categorical imperative is a general guiding principle. If you see it as a mathematical rule, you are in for a disappointment. It is not. There is common sense, and the application always uses it. This is true for any moral thesis and not specifically for the categorical imperative. For example, there is a commandment, also moral, to give charity to the poor. But I have needs and interests. Can you tell me exactly where the line is drawn?

A. I initially asked whether the categorical imperative applies to me even when I am alone or because of the influence on others (I would not want others to steal, and therefore I must not steal in order not to influence others). I understood that this is not the understanding of the categorical imperative at all, but rather that the categorical imperative is trying to define what a moral act is. Because it is not related to environmental impact (which also concerns the person of halakhah), but to the definition of a moral act – There are many who claim that formulating some kind of moral law is all well and good, but it is unnecessary for the person of halakhah who is guided by halakhah. Therefore, I asked whether there is room for someone who sees halakhah as the sole obligor to argue before it the argument from the categorical imperative that for this reason he must go to shelter (since on Pico”n's side there is none here).
B. Regarding the needs and interests that conflict with a moral act – It is clear that sometimes we choose interest, but a person who considers himself moral/halakhic in the case of charity will give charity to the poor even though he has different interests. However, interests are moral and more correct than giving charity (the poor of your city come first, for example). Otherwise, I don't see where there is room here to choose interests over the moral/halakhic act.
Thank you

I can only repeat what I said in my previous post.