Imagine someone who does the right thing without ever struggling. They don’t have to fight against laziness, greed, or selfish impulses. For them, helping a neighbor is as natural as breathing.

In Immanuel Kant’s philosophy, this moral perfection usually belongs only to God — a “holy will” that necessarily acts morally. For us mortals, morality is a struggle; it requires Virtue, which Kant defines as the moral strength to overcome natural desires.

But is the gap between “human virtue” and “holiness” truly unbridgeable?

Recent academic research has reignited a fascinating debate buried deep in Kant’s texts: the concept of “endliche heilige Wesen” (finite holy beings). This obscure phrase hints at a special class of beings who are finite and created like us, yet morally perfect like God.

If such beings are possible — even if only in theory — it completely changes our understanding of our own moral potential. Are we destined to spend eternity in struggle, or is “holiness” actually within the horizon of finite creatures?

Let’s dive into this philosophical detective story.

To understand why “finite holy beings” are so controversial, we first need to know the rules of the game. For decades, Kant scholars have defined moral subjects based on a strict binary.

On one side is the infinite holy being (God).

God has no body, feels no hunger, no jealousy, and no fatigue. Because God has no “sensuous inclinations” (fleshly desires) that conflict with duty, God cannot even be tempted. God is “holy” because his will is perfectly aligned with the moral law.

On the other side are finite rational beings (humans).

We are rational, so we know what we should do. But we are also animals; we crave pleasure and comfort. Because of this conflict, our moral life is a battle. When we do the right thing against our will, we demonstrate virtue.

Kant famously said: “Virtue is moral disposition in struggle.”

If you flip through a standard Kantian philosophy textbook, 99% of them will tell you that humans can never be holy. We can only infinitely approach it. We are stuck in an “infinite progress” toward perfection but never actually arrive. This view, while logical, leaves us with a depressing conclusion: true moral harmony is impossible for any being with a body.

Recent scholarship points out that in specific texts like The Metaphysics of Morals and lecture notes, Kant seems to contradict his own dualism. He uses the phrase “endliche heilige Wesen” (finite holy beings).

What kind of being is this? It suggests a third category outside the binary:

• Finite: They are created, limited, and may even have bodies or a specific nature.
• Holy: They do not experience the “drag” of illicit desires. They do not need “virtue” (constraint) because they have no desire to be bad.

The most common candidates for this category are angels or the theological figure of the “Son of God” (Jesus). If Jesus is considered “finite” (born as a man) yet “holy” (sinless), he breaks the rule that “having a body equals having moral struggle.”

If a finite being can be holy, it proves that finitude does not necessarily lead to evil. Just because you aren’t God doesn’t mean you are born to be torn apart by temptation. This opens a door for us: perhaps “struggle” is not a permanent feature of existence, but a feature of our current specific state.

This debate forces us to look closely at how we make choices. Source texts argue that we need to distinguish between “choice” (Willkür) and “legislative will” (Wille).

For a virtuous human, they must use their Willkür to choose the moral law, often fighting their desires. But for a finite holy being, their Willkür might be naturally attuned to the moral law.

It’s like the difference between a professional musician and a beginner:

• The Beginner (Virtuous Human): Knows the right notes but must concentrate intensely and force fingers to move correctly. It is a struggle.
• The Master (Finite Holy Being): Plays the perfect notes effortlessly. They are still human (finite), but their performance is flawless (holy).

We usually think of “overcoming temptation” as the highest form of morality. We praise the person who finds a wallet, wants to keep it, but eventually returns it.

However, Kant hints at something surprising: the person who returns the wallet without even a momentary desire to steal is in a state of “holiness.”

The existence of “finite holy beings” suggests that struggle is not the core of morality — it is only a symptom of our imperfection. The goal is not to fight forever; the goal is to reach a state where fighting is no longer necessary.

This debate over “virtue” vs. “holiness” has a striking resonance for readers familiar with Eastern philosophy. It reminds us of the famous disagreement between Mencius and Xunzi on human nature during the Warring States period.

We can use this relationship to re-examine Kant’s puzzle:

Xunzi argued that “human nature is evil” — not that humans are born criminals, but that their current status is filled with chaotic natural desires (“liking profit and hating harm”).

• In Xunzi’s view, goodness is “artifice” (wei — the result of human effort). We need rituals and laws to “correct” our nature.
• This perfectly maps to the standard Kantian concept of “Virtue”: we are defined as beings who must constantly struggle with our own desires. If we stop the struggle (“transform nature through artifice”), we slide into chaos.

In contrast, Mencius argued that “human nature is good,” defining humans by their potential. He saw moral sprouts (siduan) deeply rooted in us.

• In Mencius’s view, if we fully “extend” these potentials, moral action will no longer be a constraint but as natural as water flowing downhill.
• This echoes Kant’s “finite holy being”: a being that, though finite, has a will completely harmonized with the moral law.

What is the conclusion?

Traditional Kantian interpretations often turn Kant into a strict “Xunzi-ist,” believing humans are doomed to live in an eternal tug-of-war between desire and duty, relying only on willpower (wei) to maintain morality.

However, the revival of the “finite holy being” concept suggesting a “Mencian” horizon in Kant’s philosophy: Our ultimate goal is not perpetual suppression, but transformation and sublimation. That state of “holiness” without struggle is not just a privilege of angels, but the ultimate direction of our human potential.

The debate over “finite holy beings” might look like hair-splitting about angels, but it touches the core of the human experience. It asks: are we defined by our limitations, or by our potential?

Kant’s admission that a being can be both finite and holy offers a glimmer of hope. It suggests that moral perfection doesn’t just belong to an abstract, infinite God. In some mysterious way, this state is compatible with created existence. We might be works in progress, struggling with our “virtue” today, but the blueprint for “holiness” lies deep within our rational nature.

So, the next time you feel that doing the right thing is a struggle, ask yourself: Are you fighting just to fight, or are you working toward a state of peace where the fight is no longer needed?