but　if　I　know　that　it　is　only　by　this　process　that　the　intended
  operation　can　be　performed；　then　to　say　that；　if　I　fully　will　the
  operation；　I　also　will　the　action　required　for　it；　is　an　analytical
  proposition；　for　it　is　one　and　the　same　thing　to　conceive　something　as
  an　effect　which　I　can　produce　in　a　certain　way；　and　to　conceive　myself
  as　acting　in　this　way。
  If　it　were　only　equally　easy　to　give　a　definite　conception　of
  happiness；　the　imperatives　of　prudence　would　correspond　exactly　with
  those　of　skill；　and　would　likewise　be　analytical。　For　in　this　case
  as　in　that；　it　could　be　said：　〃Whoever　wills　the　end；　wills　also
  （according　to　the　dictate　of　reason　necessarily）　the　indispensable
  means　thereto　which　are　in　his　power。〃　But；　unfortunately；　the
  notion　of　happiness　is　so　indefinite　that　although　every　man　wishes　to
  at。　it；　yet　he　never　can　say　definitely　and　consistently　what　it　is
  that　he　really　wishes　and　wills。　The　reason　of　this　is　that　all　the
  elements　which　belong　to　the　notion　of　happiness　are　altogether
  empirical；　i。e。；　they　must　be　borrowed　from　experience；　and
  nevertheless　the　idea　of　happiness　requires　an　absolute　whole；　a
  maximum　of　welfare　in　my　present　and　all　future　circumstances。　Now
  it　is　impossible　that　the　most　clear…sighted　and　at　the　same　time　most
  powerful　being　（supposed　finite）　should　frame　to　himself　a　definite
  conception　of　what　he　really　wills　in　this。　Does　he　will　riches；　how
  much　anxiety；　envy；　and　snares　might　he　not　thereby　draw　upon　his
  shoulders？　Does　he　will　knowledge　and　discernment；　perhaps　it　might
  prove　to　be　only　an　eye　so　much　the　sharper　to　show　him　so　much　the
  more　fearfully　the　evils　that　are　now　concealed　from　him；　and　that
  cannot　be　avoided；　or　to　impose　more　wants　on　his　desires；　which
  already　give　him　concern　enough。　Would　he　have　long　life？　who
  guarantees　to　him　that　it　would　not　be　a　long　misery？　would　he　at
  least　have　health？　how　often　has　uneasiness　of　the　body　restrained
  from　excesses　into　which　perfect　health　would　have　allowed　one　to
  fall？　and　so　on。　In　short；　he　is　unable；　on　any　principle；　to
  determine　with　certainty　what　would　make　him　truly　happy；　because　to
  do　so　he　would　need　to　be　omniscient。　We　cannot　therefore　act　on　any
  definite　principles　to　secure　happiness；　but　only　on　empirical
  counsels；　e。g。　of　regimen；　frugality；　courtesy；　reserve；　etc。；　which
  experience　teaches　do；　on　the　average；　most　promote　well…being。
  Hence　it　follows　that　the　imperatives　of　prudence　do　not；　strictly
  speaking；　command　at　all；　that　is；　they　cannot　present　actions
  objectively　as　practically　necessary；　that　they　are　rather　to　be
  regarded　as　counsels　（consilia）　than　precepts　precepts　of　reason；　that
  the　problem　to　determine　certainly　and　universally　what　action　would
  promote　the　happiness　of　a　rational　being　is　completely　insoluble；　and
  consequently　no　imperative　respecting　it　is　possible　which　should；
  in　the　strict　sense；　command　to　do　what　makes　happy；　because　happiness
  is　not　an　ideal　of　reason　but　of　imagination；　resting　solely　on
  empirical　grounds；　and　it　is　vain　to　expect　that　these　should　define
  an　action　by　which　one　could　attain　the　totality　of　a　series　of
  consequences　which　is　really　endless。　This　imperative　of　prudence
  would　however　be　an　analytical　proposition　if　we　assume　that　the　means
  to　happiness　could　be　certainly　assigned；　for　it　is　distinguished　from
  the　imperative　of　skill　only　by　this；　that　in　the　latter　the　end　is
  merely　possible；　in　the　former　it　is　given；　as　however　both　only
  ordain　the　means　to　that　which　we　suppose　to　be　willed　as　an　end；　it
  follows　that　the　imperative　which　ordains　the　willing　of　the　means
  to　him　who　wills　the　end　is　in　both　cases　analytical。　Thus　there　is　no
  difficulty　in　regard　to　the　possibility　of　an　imperative　of　this
  kind　either。
  On　the　other　hand；　the　question　how　the　imperative　of　morality　is
  possible；　is　undoubtedly　one；　the　only　one；　demanding　a　solution；　as
  this　is　not　at　all　hypothetical；　and　the　objective　necessity　which
  it　presents　cannot　rest　on　any　hypothesis；　as　is　the　case　with　the
  hypothetical　imperatives。　Only　here　we　must　never　leave　out　of
  consideration　that　we　cannot　make　out　by　any　example；　in　other　words
  empirically；　whether　there　is　such　an　imperative　at　all；　but　it　is
  rather　to　be　feared　that　all　those　which　seem　to　be　categorical　may
  yet　be　at　bottom　hypothetical。　For　instance；　when　the　precept　is：
  〃Thou　shalt　not　promise　deceitfully〃；　and　it　is　assumed　that　the
  necessity　of　this　is　not　a　mere　counsel　to　avoid　some　other　evil；　so
  that　it　should　mean：　〃Thou　shalt　not　make　a　lying　promise；　lest　if
  it　become　known　thou　shouldst　destroy　thy　credit；〃　but　that　an
  action　of　this　kind　must　be　regarded　as　evil　in　itself；　so　that　the
  imperative　of　the　prohibition　is　categorical；　then　we　cannot　show　with
  certainty　in　any　example　that　the　will　was　determined　merely　by　the
  law；　without　any　other　spring　of　action；　although　it　may　appear　to
  be　so。　For　it　is　always　possible　that　fear　of　disgrace；　perhaps　also
  obscure　dread　of　other　dangers；　may　have　a　secret　influence　on　the
  will。　Who　can　prove　by　experience　the　non…existence　of　a　cause　when
  all　that　experience　tells　us　is　that　we　do　not　perceive　it？　But　in
  such　a　case　the　so…called　moral　imperative；　which　as　such　appears　to
  be　categorical　and　unconditional；　would　in　reality　be　only　a　pragmatic
  precept；　drawing　our　attention　to　our　own　interests　and　merely
  teaching　us　to　take　these　into　consideration。
  We　shall　therefore　have　to　investigate　a　priori　the　possibility　of　a
  categorical　imperative；　as　we　have　not　in　this　case　the　advantage　of
  its　reality　being　given　in　experience；　so　that　＇the　elucidation　of＇
  its　possibility　should　be　requisite　only　for　its　explanation；　not
  for　its　establishment。　In　the　meantime　it　may　be　discerned
  beforehand　that　the　categorical　imperative　alone　has　the　purport　of
  a　practical　law；　all　the　rest　may　indeed　be　called　principles　of　the
  will　but　not　laws；　since　whatever　is　only　necessary　for　the　attainment
  of　some　arbitrary　purpose　may　be　considered　as　in　itself　contingent；
  and　we　can　at　any　time　be　free　from　the　precept　if　we　give　up　the
  purpose；　on　the　contrary；　the　unconditional　command　leaves　the　will　no
  liberty　to　choose　the　opposite；　consequently　it　alone　carries　with
  it　that　necessity　which　we　require　in　a　law。
  Secondly；　in　the　case　of　this　categorical　imperative　or　law　of
  morality；　the　difficulty　（of　discerning　its　possibility）　is　a　very
  profound　one。　It　is　an　a　priori　synthetical　practical　proposition；*
  and　as　there　is　so　much　difficulty　in　discerning　the　possibility　of
  speculative　propositions　of　this　kind；　it　may　readily　be　supposed　that
  the　difficulty　will　be　no　less　with　the　practical。
  *I　connect　the　act　with　the　will　without　presupposing　any
  condition　resulting　from　any　inclination；　but　a　priori；　and
  therefore　necessarily　（though　only　objectively；　i。e。；　assuming　the
  idea　of　a　reason　possessing　full　power　over　all　subjective　motives）。
  This　is　accordingly　a　practical　proposition　which　does　not　deduce
  the　willing　of　an　action　by　mere　analysis　from　another　already
  presupposed　（for　we　have　not　such　a　perfect　will）；　but　connects　it
  immediately　with　the　conception　of　the　will　of　a　rational　being；　as
  something　not　contained　in　it。
  In　this　problem　we　will　first　inquire　whether　the　mere　conception　of
  a　categorical　imperative　may　not　perhaps　supply　us　also　with　the
  formula　of　it；　containing　the　proposition　which　alone　can　be　a
  categorical　imperative；　for　even　if　we　know　the　tenor　of　such　an
  absolute　command；　yet　how　it　is　possible　will　require　further
  special　and　laborious　study；　which　we　postpone　to　the　last　section。
  When　I　conceive　a　hypothetical　imperative；　in　general　I　do　not
  know　beforehand　what　it　will　contain　until　I　am　given　the　condition。
  But　when　I　conceive　a　categorical　imperative；　I　know　at　once　what　it
  contains。　For　as　the　imperative　contains　besides　the　law　only　the
  necessity　that　the　maxims*　shall　conform　to　this　law；　while　the　law
  contains　no　conditions　restricting　it；　there　remains　nothing　but　the
  general　statement　that　the　maxim　of　the　action　should　conform　to　a
  universal　law；　and　it　is　this　conformity　alone　that　the　imperative
  properly　represents　as　necessary。
  *A　maxim　is　a　subjective　principle　of　action；　and　must　be
  distinguished　from　the　objective　principle；　namely；　practical　law。　The
  former　contains　the　practical　rule　set　by　reason　according　to　the
  conditions　of　the　subject　（often　its　ignorance　or　its　inclinations）；
  so　that　it　is　the　principle　on　which　the　subject　acts；　but　the　law
  is　the　objective　principle　valid　for　every　rational　being；　and　is
  the　principle　on　which　it　ought　to　act　that　is　an　imperative。
  There　is　therefore　but　one　categorical　imperative；　namely；　this：　Act
  only　on　that　maxim　whereby　thou　canst　at　the　same　time　will　that　it
  should　become　a　universal　law。
  Now　if　all　imperatives　of　duty　can　be　de