What is your confused Q for 3/2?

What if a person does not genuinely have goodwill and pretends to do moral things just to accord with duty and benefit themselves?

is a person who was selfish there entire life, saved another persons life ... Are they automatically "forgiven" ?

And also, I don't quite understand how "it is a duty to preserve ones life" ;

I am confused about what a apodictic practical principal is ...

i thought good will was an act on good faith, is it really our duty?

I was confused when it was saying that intelligence can become harmful? I always thought that more intelligence you have the better off you are.

I'm confused about what the categorical imperative is and what an apodictic practical principle is

"those who have made the greatest use of reason- have certain hostility towards reason." I don't know what he means by that statement.

I'm confused when Kant writes,

I'm confuse about how good will can eliminate happiness.

Kant says that every organ is perfectly adapted to its purpose and that reason interferes with nature’s purpose of instinct. I'm guessing that Libertarians are against the theory of Utilitarianism, which largely encourages reason to maximize the well-being of the larger amount? Also, I thought the critics of reason made an astute point in saying that reason brings more trouble than happiness, and envy those who only use instinct. This makes me question, is ignorance really bliss?

...confused about what he was talking about but then I understood it.

I think the reading is self explanatory. At the beginning I was a bit..

i believe every will has a reason whether its selfless or selfish but does that that mean it is an action or duty? Does it depend on reason?

What is universal law and how does it work, does it apply to everyone?

Since 'only a rational being has a WILL' does that mean people without will/goodwill are irrational?

"it says we have a duty to be charitably helpful where we can.they do without selfishness but such behavior has no moral truth." How does it not?

As long as we act in a way that we believe is in accordance with the universal law it is absolutely good, but what if the action is immoral?

How can intelligence become harmful? Is kant saying that we believe in morals because its our duty? What exactly does morals have to do with duty?

Is Kant's theory similar to libertarianism because he believes that we have a duty to behave and perform certain actions in accordance with the law?

Why does will and reason correspond with each other how are they "connected"?

can there be a good deed done selflessly? Can will not exist without reason?

I have no idea what this is saying 'Can you will that your maxim becomes a universal law'?

How can a person produce wills that are good in them self instead of as a means when there is a motive behind everything that we do?

What if nature did not give the ability to reason as well as instinct, would that be a reason people don't have good will?

what does it mean to have a duty to do something whereas " it is far harder to detect that difference when the action the person performs"?

i did not underdtand "not of you but of a being"

On page 7 the quote does it mean that one should not do what they believe everyone should not do as if there is an unwritten law?

avishkar manna i dont understand how "it is far harder to detect that difference when the action the person performs one that is in accord with duty is

can good will really be describe, does the era, and where we are alter the definition of it?

avishkar manna i dont understand how it is far harder to detect that difference when the action the person performs - one that is in accord with duty - i

avishkar manna i dont understand how "it is far harder to detect that difference when the action the person performs - one that is in accord with duty -

I don't understand what "all moral concepts have their origin entirely a priori in reason" means

What exactly is his definition of good will and why can it be destroyed by courage? Would he use Hitler's preserverance as an expample as to why that do

I think what people won't understand is the idea of the good will and how it's not so much just doing an action but doing a duty.

I dont undestand, the quote "I ought to act in such a way that I couldn't also will that the maxim onwhich I act should be a universal law.

I dont understand how good will is not about usefulness. If you do something useful for somebody isnt that a good will?

is Kant a virtue ethicist? And is his main point the difference between common sense and philosophical thinking?

thus my maxium would necessarily destroy itself as soon as it was made a universal law, what does this mean?

I do not understand how courage and perseverance can become harmful?