Kant's Categorical Imperative
Immanuel Kant stated that the categorical imperative is to act in such a way that, if other people acted the same way, it would form the basis of a universal moral law.
What he did not specify is that different people are suited for different roles, and that if someone, say, excels in ice-skating that does not mean that they should not excel in ice-skating because everyone being ice skaters would not work for the well-being of everyone.
Different temperaments and different natures are suited to different tasks. Some people make better warriors than they make scientists. Some people make better businessmen than they make writers. Would the world be better if everyone was a farmer or a manufacturing worker, just because there is a need for many farmers and manufacturing workers? Pol Pot already tried that. It did not work.
Kant was right about one thing: The necessity to think in ways centered around how to benefit the rest of the world. But he failed to see the fact that doing that requires different roles. The world would not be better if everyone became an ice skater or an artist, but that does not detract from the achievement of people who are ice skaters or artists. The world would not be better if everyone became a businessman, but that doesn't detract from the achievement of good businessmen.
Centering one's thinking around what would make a better world is valuable intellectual exercise. What it doesn't require is demanding that everyone act the same or be the same. Different people contribute in different ways. And this is especially the case for people who think differently from others around them, as these people become the world's innovators as well as its bulwark against situations in which other people think wrongly.
According to Kantian logic, everyone should act in the same way; and that is a ticket for totalitarianism. In the real world, there are lots of different things that need to be done, and there are different ways of doing them. Most of the world's biggest contributors have been highly eccentric or wrote their own tickets. The world benefits from their contributions, even though their actions would be incompatible with Kant's concept of categorical imperative.
The way to a better world is not demanding that everyone thinks or behave the same. The way to a better world is building on contributions of all sorts of people depending on what they have to offer. This requires an attitude or a state of mind; it does not require similitude. The question to ask on behalf of everyone is what they stand or choose to contribute. It is not to make everyone the same person living the same way.