"To be beneficent where one can is a duty; and besides this, there are many persons who are so sympathetically constituted that, without any further motive of vanity or self interest, they find an inner pleasure in spreading joy around them and can rejoice in the satisfaction of others as their own work. But I maintain that in such a case an action of this kind, however dutiful and amiable it may be, has nevertheless no true moral worth."
             Kant is stating that when the opportunity arises to be helpful (without recognition) or to do a good deed when one is presented without thinking about it or taking away from their own that it is a duty of every human being. He explains further however, that their are those whose lives are centered around the pleasure of others and happiness of others. There are those individuals whose happiness is presented through others happiness and by the act of going out of the individuals self to advance others in their own happiness they in turn are content and happy knowing that they made someone else happy. The fact that they did good towards another is their only happiness. He also states that this being the case no matter how good or moral the acts of kindness may be he is certain that these type of people in their actions have no true moral value or worth at all. He contends that these acts of kindness are not morally worthy at all.
             I believe that Kant believes in doing good to others when the opportunity arises and that when presented with a problem and one can do the morally right thing by helping others if it is in their duty. Kant believes this because he believes that it would be wrong not to do good or help someone in a particular instance where no one else was around to help.
             Nothing is happening to advance there virtue and knowledge on the earth while they are advancing someone else's. So when one of these acts is unasked
             ...