I disagree with Kant’s suggestion that each person can be both a “scholar,” as Kant put it, and fulfill another, contradicting position at the same time. On Page 107, Kant points to a clergyman that is in his free time a scholar, who is bound to preach along the rules of the church, unable to act against the confines of religion is free to criticize it in his free time; this is an unhealthy idea that leads to such concepts as a preacher that will collect donations for the church and then behind the backs of his donors repurpose these funds to serve some personal indulgence such as furniture or an airplane. Furthermore, this suggests that he is obligated to teach to others information that he, and others, may find to be uncertain or entirely incorrect. His obligation to abide by the rules and teachings of his church, then, would lead him to deliberately misinform those under his tutelage despite the fact that he can, via free thinking, take an opposing stance and speak the truth. Similarly, an officer should not necessarily be ruined by resisting an order of a superior officer if said order leads him to do something heinous, up to and including criminal activity.