According to Kant, why would it be incorrect for anyone to be homeless on a voluntary basis?

Immanuel Kant came up with a categorical imperative treatment, the main purpose of which was to decide if the action was right or wrong. Kant's results state that "act only the maxim that you can at the same time that it should become universal law." Kant concludes that we should act in compliance with universal law. According to Fieser (174), it is not fair for anyone to be homeless on a voluntary basis and everybody in the world cannot be homeless.
What is the universal law of existence for Wolff?Wolff’s fundamental law states that, “Do what makes you and your condition, or that of others, more perfect; omit what makes it less perfect” (Fieser 175). Wolff states that we as human beings have the free will to choose what we want in life but only God resolves what can be accurate morally or even morally wrong. The dilemma supports the issue about moral acts that are morally correct because God has the will to make divine commands and lead the lives of people through his leadership. The power of God will live forever through the good moral reality. Personally, I say that an issue is morally correct in history after people foretold about the high power talking unto them about how they should always live and how they should deal with it. The problem with this issue is that when an individual says that “God” has the power to deem the set of moral rules and another one suggests that “God” said to them that it was wrong then what should human beings believe? I propose that we only need to understand what is correct. One, however, keeps on wondering what is right in this case. The answer to this is that we can only know what we should believe in by doing the right. The Divine Command Theory of morality, in this case, helps in bringing the idea that human beings have the power to come up with what is correct on our own without God’s assistance. This however, gets us to the other half of the idea: “Are ethically right acts desired by God since they are morally decent?”If one tends to assume that the righteousness of God, cannot create what is accurate or wrong but only gets to state the facts, then this means that moral acts are never under control of God, but instead follows them since they are right (Archer, 2016). By this, it is evident that command comes from God for only the morally and ethically allowed issue. God uses his knowledge and wisdom to make such commands because he is aware of what people perceive to be right or even wrong through the verdict of life. This is the arbitrary quarrel that says that ethical or moral acts can only be moral since God has the final command to accept this argument about moral actions without the presence of God. This, however, results in the likelihood God can never be in existence in life (Bojanowski, 2016). If people can think what is either wrong or right on their own then why should they say that God is the subject of their thoughts?The Divine command system of morality, however, tends to make people appear to be uncomfortable. Some are either uncomfortable because they never know what is right or wrong without necessary having the presence of God which means that we might deem some sinful actions by ourselves (Brady, 2017). This can be considered morally and can be sinful. It can also mean that people pass judgment by themselves and that there no need to have the input of God except during the process of enlightening us about what many people know that it is correct. This can also suggest that people have the ability to exist even without the existence of God. People do not want to learn to the idea God does not exist and that people do not need him (Lian, 2016). It is, therefore, evident that people are in a great struggle with what is right or wrong since from the other perspective God can suppose everything that is moral or immoral, and we need to obey what he says. Moral acts should only remain ethical since they are and God should never exist in this case for such issues to happen. The association between morality and religion remains on a brink in this situation. We do not have the ability to state what is right or what is wrong in life. In the first case, one can suggest that an individual can say what is morally right only after hearing if from God. The second option is that ethical actions can be acted out without God. The first choice, however, remains invalid to the atheists. Atheists believe that if it is true, then this means that everything that an atheist does should be immoral and is bad. Let us assume this is incorrect (Walden, 2015). From an individual perspective, some atheists have done horrible things throughout their life. I can also suggest that some atheists have always done what is right and have never caused harm to any individual. From this perspective, you can argue that the second option can be correct based on the Divine command system of morality than the first since the second allows the atheists to do what is morally right without God’s help. What are the philosophical implications associated with each option here?The philosophical implication in each option here can be held to the refuted argument that is referred to as “the Euthyphro dilemma.” The case was named after the Euthyphro dialogue of Plato which contains some inspiration for the argument (Woods & Pack, 2016). The Euthyphro dilemma is based on the modernized form of the question that the Socrates asked in Euthyphro just as discussed above. From the two opportunities, the arguments result in some consequences regarding the divine command theory that most theorists do not accept. Plato introduces us to philosophy stating that the two technical terms are significantly important and gives us the example of an application of some formal and logical techniques towards the philosophical issue. Plato also introduces the Euthyphro dilemma that discusses the originality between Euthyphro and Socrates and next debates some logics about “The Divine Command Theory” (Wright, 2014). These issues are not just spiritual but also logical through the concept of Euthyphro Dilemma and the Divine Command Theory, and this is where most of the arguments come from. To start with, we can first argue that the “Divine Command theory is only a meta-ethical theory that proposes how the status of an action can be morally right and how it is equivalent to what God commands. The believers of the polytheistic and monotheistic religion from the modern and ancient times have always accepted that God’s power is necessary while creating morality. Some variants regarding this theory have been offered (Archer, 2016). First, from the historical perspective, figures include Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus who have come up with several versions regarding the divine command theory. From the current period, Robert Merrithew Adams proposes that the “modified divine command theory” that was based on omnibenevolence of God from which morality linked the conceptions of human of either right and wrong (Bojanowski, 2016). On the other hand, Paul Copan argued for the theory basing on the viewpoint of the Christians. The divine motivation theory of Linda Zagzebski proposes that the motivation of God is a source of morality. Secondly, from “Euthyphro’s dilemma, we find Plato’ dialogue of Euthyphro where the Socrates ask Euthyphro where pious loves the gods because it was pious or it is religious who was loved by the god?” Euthyphro proposes that from his first definition what they gods like is pious and what they do not like is impious. According to the Socrates, the gods disagree about several issues and what they seem to love and hate are the gods (Woods & Pack, 2016). From the above definition, some of the things will either be pious or impious. The point remains to be logical and mythological sense from the reading, “the gods” who are stated as “some gods” are either piety or impiety and can be defined as never logical in contrast to what is found in some of the similar things.”Summing up, one can assume that any of the two ideas can be correct. The Divine Command theory, for instance, can be accepted, and from how the Euthyphro and Socrates describe it you can assume that it is just a logical statement. “The term “Divine Command Theory” does not appear to be a particular metaethical account but just a cluster of similar views. One can just assume that it is a subject that which change because religions use it as content from the bible or just as a teaching that they often choose to read. From an individual perspective, it is just important for one to live life in the best way that one knows and go by it feeling morally right. If you think God is the one in charge of your life, then it is up to you to follow him. On the other hand, if you believe that God does not add any value to your life then you can end up by making a correct assumption and let all the power to be yours. It is not necessary to spend life debating this issue. Just live on and Live to your best!Works CitedArcher, A. (2016). Divine moral goodness, supererogation, and The Euthyphro Dilemma. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 79(2), 147-160.Bojanowski, J. (2016). Kant’s Solution to the Euthyphro Dilemma. Philosophia, 1-20.Brady, M. (2017). Painfulness, desire, and the Euthyphro dilemma. American Philosophical Quarterly.Lian, Z. H. O. U. (2016). Can Rawls’ Constructivism Avoid the Euthyphro Dilemma? In Reply to Shafer-Landau. Frontiers of Philosophy in China, 10(4), 568-578.Walden, K. (2015). The Euthyphro Dilemma. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 90(3), 612-639.Woods, C., & Pack, R. (2016). Socrates of Athens: Euthyphro, Socrates' Defense, Crito and the Death Scene from Phaedo.Wright, R. G. (2014). Religion Without God and the Future of Free Exercise. Clev. St. L. Rev., 63, 147.