 The Universalizability Formulation is one of four formulations of the categorical imperative Kant provided, and some recent Kantian theorists have de-emphasized it, placing more weight on other formulations. Houston Smit and Mark Timmons suggest that the humanity formulation, “which commands individuals to treat humanity as an end in itself, never merely as a means” (2017, 175) be read as attributing to autonomous beings an “elevated status of dignity” which “is something all rational agents possess (and possess equally) as far as dignity qua autonomous agents goes […]. This equal status is the basis of a principle of moral equality” (187). This in turn implies two principles of impartiality. The positive principle of impartiality states that “one is to adopt maxims and perform corresponding actions that manifest a positive concern for the ends [especially the needs] of others.” The negative principle of impartiality states that “one is to avoid adopting maxims or performing actions that manifest a negative concern for the ends (especially the needs) of others.” Both of these principles, they point out, “concern the welfare of persons.” (187–8) Smit and Timmons go on to argue that these principles of impartiality imply a duty of beneficence which “involves adopting an unselfish maxim that disposes one to promote the well-being of others in need without, as Kant says, ‘hoping for something in return.’” (206) There is some common ground here with utilitarian approaches, though of course on a Kantian account the duty of beneficence is an imperfect duty: one need not do everything one can by way of helping others in need in order to demonstrate the proper sort of respect for the humanity of others. (This leaves open, of course, the question of just how much one is required to do.)