Read it again, dumbass. It's not that fucking hard. Now, it's easy to not AGREE with him, but it isn't hard to understand him.

He analyzes what we really mean by "good will."
He talks about what really goes into determining an action.
He points out (and this may be a step you're not willing to grant him, but the reasoning is transparent) that we can't strictly call a good will good if it's at all determined by any Empirical content.
He ends up concluding that the only law a truly good will would follow is the "pure form of a law" itself-- no empirical content.

Go reread it and fill in the gaps.

>>7742763
Which part? We learned that stuff in school. I'm sure only superficially but it wasn't that hard to get.

He was spooked into it.

>>7742794
>>7742794
>He ends up concluding that the only law a truly good will would follow is the "pure form of a law" itself-- no empirical content.
okay, but is his formulation really the only possibility to formulate such a law? it seems like a leap. what if we say "act only according to that maxim that's in accordance with god's law". There's no empirical content, no?

Read the Prolegomena

What is freedom for Kant:
For Kant, freedom is (following Rousseau) is “obedience to a self imposed law”. Randomness not what Kant claims. If it is not mere randomness, then what is it?
- It is a certain sort of following a law, but what kind of rule of law? It cant be a law thats imposed on us from outside by nature, or an external agent. If such a law were imposed on us, then it would conflict with the notion of positive freedom. It must be a law that comes out of our own rational nature, and hence a law that a law that we embrace as our own.

Kant is against ‘heteronomy’ = obedience to a law imposed on the subject by something (e.g., nature) or someone other than the subject itself.

Kant advocates for the autonomy of the subject.
Autonomy: giving oneself the laws, actively embracing the
laws as our own = to exist as a free rational being.
(1) Partial autonomy: the understanding ‘gives’ the laws to nature but is constrained by what sensibility passively received from nature.
(2) Complete Autonomy: We give ourselves the moral law and nothing else is needed.

As rational beings we “give” ourselves the moral law = we obey the law and embrace it as our own (as opposed to an imposed law - heteronomy). Keep this in mind!

- The Noumenal world is the source or seat of autonomy (as required for practical reason); At the same time, the noumenal world is a threat to, or constraint for, the autonomy of theoretical reason. This Noumenal world has 2 different roles, on one hand, it is the source of sensations and the ground of appearances and is responsible for this partial autonomy.

- The Moral Law: Always act so that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle establishing universal law.

Kants Discussion of suicide - Plan of action: “From self love I make it my principle to shorten my life if its continuance threatens more evil than it promises pleasure” Could this become a natural law of nature? (could it be added to the other laws of nature?). There is nothing morally wrong with this when it comes to Kant. According to Kant, you should imagine a world where this law is a law of nature. Then you have to ask yourself whether this could coexist with the other laws in that world. He says no, because the nature would contain a contradiction: The feeling of self love in nature has the function to prolong and preserve; this feeling cannot at the same time have the function of destroying others.

a categorical imperative: “Do X!”, regardless of the conditions and aims.
not a hypothetical imperative: “in circumstances Y, do X!” or “if you want Y, do X!”.
-- a ‘formal’ law (to be applied without presupposing values, aims, etc.)
-- not a ‘material’ law (application presupposes particular values, e.g., “do what promotes happiness”). His Moral law will be finished next class.

noii

>>7742763
>categorical imperative
It's an idea similar to:"Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself" of Jesus.

>>7745281

You are so very wrong

>>7745281
No it is more like "Say, you're aware of your impulse to lie about this-and-that. But suppose that everybody lied, at all times. How would you like that? You probably wouldn't. Hence you ought not to lie. Ever."

>>7743103

That form wouldn't be pure, contentless self-legislation. A good will follows a law, but he is also free. The form he picks has to take both of these into consideration. See
>>7743801

Also, keep in mind Kant gives a formulation of the categorical imperative 3 times IIRC, and the third seems, at least formally, very different from the first two. I don't remember what I ended up deciding about it's relation to his earlier analysis.

But that sounds like your homework, so get to it.