What is the point?

That any maxim which once converted into a universal law of nature
would result in contradictions unto nature itself or create an impossible state of nature or
hurts the being himself cannot therefore be a reason for action.

Kant – we must be able to will that our maxim of action become universal law – this is the
canon of moral appraisal of action.

2 categories of situations here:

1) Opposition to strict/narrow (unremitting duties) – cannot even be thought of being a
universal law
2) Opposition to wide (meritorious duties) – the will to be nature will contradict itself

What is a transgression of duty?

Not willing our maxim to be universal law, the opposite should remain universal law, but we
carve out an exception for ourselves towards our inclination. This is a contradiction – because
if it allows for subjective exceptions how is it objectively universal? Kant says it is not a
contradiction, it is our inclinations resisting the force of reason, which results in a principle
not being universal but being general. Acc to him, this doesn’t mean the CI is not valid, it just
means that few exceptions become unavoidable.

How do you establish that there is an absolute law unto itself and the observance of the law is
a duty?
Caveat – this principle is not derived from a special property of human nature. It has to apply
to all rational beings and hence be a law for all human wills.
Something that is derived from a special property of humanity can be a maxim but not a law
i.e. it can be a subjective principle if you have the propensity or inclination, but not an
objective principle directing you to act in a certain way despite every inclination/natural
tendency. He thinks a command within a duty is stronger when there are fewer subjective
causes to it.

No divine tutelage or morals – philosophy as a sustainer of its own laws, because such a
priori principles would never be dictated by reason and have their source outside of it, expect
respect for the supremacy of laws and condemn the human for failure to obey it.
Proper worth of a good will is that the principle of action is free from all influences of
contingent grounds, hence it cannot be empirical per se either. Human reason based on such
grounds believes it to be morality but it is a mere illusion.

Is this method of appraisal always a necessary law for all human beings? Is it a priori – Kant
says for this you have to go into metaphysics instead of speculative philosophy. Practical
philosophy means you are concerned with what ought to happen, even if it never does.
Philosophy of nature based on empirical laws – how and why inclinations and desires arise,
and these may have their own maxims. This is different from objective practical laws, which
is what Kant is concerned with i.e. the relation of will to itself determined by reason, which
means it has to be a priori and not empirical.

What is will? Capacity of rational beings to determine will itself to acting in conformity with
the representation of certain laws. The objective ground for its self-determination is an end??
The ground of possibility of an action the effect of which is an end is a means. Subjective
grounds of desire rest on incentives, objective grounds of volition rest on motives. Practical
principles are formal when they abstract from subjective ends, and material if subjective ends
are their basis.
Ends that rational beings propose as the effect of his actions i.e. material ends are relative
because they depend on the subjective desire (hence all objects of inclination conditional
worth), which means they cannot be universal principles valid for all rational beings and
hence no practice laws. Thus, relative ends are the ground of hypothetical imperatives.
Distinction from something which is an end in and of itself, the existence of which has
absolute worth. This can be ground of a categorical imperative.

Hence all rational beings exists as an end in itself, and not a means to be used towards an end,
hence in all actions whether towards himself or others, he must be the end at the same time.
Rational beings are called persons because nature marks them out as an end in themselves,
and is an object of respect.

The worth of any object to be acquired by our action is always conditional, which is what
happens in the case of inclinations. The existence as an effect of our action has a worth for us
(subjective ends).

Distinction from persons - Things – the existence of which depends on nature and not our
will, and without reason, hence have a relative worth.

Hence ground of this supreme practical principle is that rational nature exists in an end in
itself, and this can serve as a universal practical law. From this you derive all laws of the will.
Hence imperative is – act that you use humanity, wrt yourself or others, always at the same
time as an end, and never as a means. He also calls this the supreme limiting condition of the
freedom of action of every human being i.e. limiting all our subjective ends, whatever they
may be, through reason.

Same 4 examples – with respect to developing talents, he brings up the idea of furtherance
of humanity rather than just its preservation. The point through these 4 examples is
showing different ways of how humanity must be considered to be an end.