purpose　here。
  Looking　back　now　on　all　previous　attempts　to　discover　the
  principle　of　morality；　we　need　not　wonder　why　they　all　failed。　It
  was　seen　that　man　was　bound　to　laws　by　duty；　but　it　was　not　observed
  that　the　laws　to　which　he　is　subject　are　only　those　of　his　own　giving；
  though　at　the　same　time　they　are　universal；　and　that　he　is　only
  bound　to　act　in　conformity　with　his　own　will；　a　will；　however；　which
  is　designed　by　nature　to　give　universal　laws。　For　when　one　has
  conceived　man　only　as　subject　to　a　law　（no　matter　what）；　then　this　law
  required　some　interest；　either　by　way　of　attraction　or　constraint；
  since　it　did　not　originate　as　a　law　from　his　own　will；　but　this　will
  was　according　to　a　law　obliged　by　something　else　to　act　in　a　certain
  manner。　Now　by　this　necessary　consequence　all　the　labour　spent　in
  finding　a　supreme　principle　of　duty　was　irrevocably　lost。　For　men
  never　elicited　duty；　but　only　a　necessity　of　acting　from　a　certain
  interest。　Whether　this　interest　was　private　or　otherwise；　in　any
  case　the　imperative　must　be　conditional　and　could　not　by　any　means
  be　capable　of　being　a　moral　command。　I　will　therefore　call　this　the
  principle　of　autonomy　of　the　will；　in　contrast　with　every　other
  which　I　accordingly　reckon　as　heteronomy。
  The　conception　of　the　will　of　every　rational　being　as　one　which　must
  consider　itself　as　giving　in　all　the　maxims　of　its　will　universal
  laws；　so　as　to　judge　itself　and　its　actions　from　this　point　of　view…
  this　conception　leads　to　another　which　depends　on　it　and　is　very
  fruitful；　namely　that　of　a　kingdom　of　ends。
  By　a　kingdom　I　understand　the　union　of　different　rational　beings
  in　a　system　by　common　laws。　Now　since　it　is　by　laws　that　ends　are
  determined　as　regards　their　universal　validity；　hence；　if　we
  abstract　from　the　personal　differences　of　rational　beings　and　likewise
  from　all　the　content　of　their　private　ends；　we　shall　be　able　to
  conceive　all　ends　combined　in　a　systematic　whole　（including　both
  rational　beings　as　ends　in　themselves；　and　also　the　special　ends　which
  each　may　propose　to　himself）；　that　is　to　say；　we　can　conceive　a
  kingdom　of　ends；　which　on　the　preceding　principles　is　possible。
  For　all　rational　beings　come　under　the　law　that　each　of　them　must
  treat　itself　and　all　others　never　merely　as　means；　but　in　every　case
  at　the　same　time　as　ends　in　themselves。　Hence　results　a　systematic
  union　of　rational　being　by　common　objective　laws；　i。e。；　a　kingdom
  which　may　be　called　a　kingdom　of　ends；　since　what　these　laws　have　in
  view　is　just　the　relation　of　these　beings　to　one　another　as　ends　and
  means。　It　is　certainly　only　an　ideal。
  A　rational　being　belongs　as　a　member　to　the　kingdom　of　ends　when；
  although　giving　universal　laws　in　it；　he　is　also　himself　subject　to
  these　laws。　He　belongs　to　it　as　sovereign　when；　while　giving　laws；
  he　is　not　subject　to　the　will　of　any　other。
  A　rational　being　must　always　regard　himself　as　giving　laws　either　as
  member　or　as　sovereign　in　a　kingdom　of　ends　which　is　rendered　possible
  by　the　freedom　of　will。　He　cannot；　however；　maintain　the　latter
  position　merely　by　the　maxims　of　his　will；　but　only　in　case　he　is　a
  completely　independent　being　without　wants　and　with　unrestricted　power
  adequate　to　his　will。
  Morality　consists　then　in　the　reference　of　all　action　to　the
  legislation　which　alone　can　render　a　kingdom　of　ends　possible。　This
  legislation　must　be　capable　of　existing　in　every　rational　being　and　of
  emanating　from　his　will；　so　that　the　principle　of　this　will　is　never
  to　act　on　any　maxim　which　could　not　without　contradiction　be　also　a
  universal　law　and；　accordingly；　always　so　to　act　that　the　will　could
  at　the　same　time　regard　itself　as　giving　in　its　maxims　universal　laws。
  If　now　the　maxims　of　rational　beings　are　not　by　their　own　nature
  coincident　with　this　objective　principle；　then　the　necessity　of　acting
  on　it　is　called　practical　necessitation；　i。e。；　duty。　Duty　does　not
  apply　to　the　sovereign　in　the　kingdom　of　ends；　but　it　does　to　every
  member　of　it　and　to　all　in　the　same　degree。
  The　practical　necessity　of　acting　on　this　principle；　i。e。；　duty；
  does　not　rest　at　all　on　feelings；　impulses；　or　inclinations；　but
  solely　on　the　relation　of　rational　beings　to　one　another；　a　relation
  in　which　the　will　of　a　rational　being　must　always　be　regarded　as
  legislative；　since　otherwise　it　could　not　be　conceived　as　an　end　in
  itself。　Reason　then　refers　every　maxim　of　the　will；　regarding　it　as
  legislating　universally；　to　every　other　will　and　also　to　every
  action　towards　oneself；　and　this　not　on　account　of　any　other　practical
  motive　or　any　future　advantage；　but　from　the　idea　of　the　dignity　of
  a　rational　being；　obeying　no　law　but　that　which　he　himself　also　gives。
  In　the　kingdom　of　ends　everything　has　either　value　or　dignity。
  Whatever　has　a　value　can　be　replaced　by　something　else　which　is
  equivalent；　whatever；　on　the　other　hand；　is　above　all　value；　and
  therefore　admits　of　no　equivalent；　has　a　dignity。
  Whatever　has　reference　to　the　general　inclinations　and　wants　of
  mankind　has　a　market　value；　whatever；　without　presupposing　a　want；
  corresponds　to　a　certain　taste；　that　is　to　a　satisfaction　in　the
  mere　purposeless　play　of　our　faculties；　has　a　fancy　value；　but　that
  which　constitutes　the　condition　under　which　alone　anything　can　be　an
  end　in　itself；　this　has　not　merely　a　relative　worth；　i。e。；　value；
  but　an　intrinsic　worth；　that　is；　dignity。
  Now　morality　is　the　condition　under　which　alone　a　rational　being　can
  be　an　end　in　himself；　since　by　this　alone　is　it　possible　that　he
  should　be　a　legislating　member　in　the　kingdom　of　ends。　Thus
  morality；　and　humanity　as　capable　of　it；　is　that　which　alone　has
  dignity。　Skill　and　diligence　in　labour　have　a　market　value；　wit；
  lively　imagination；　and　humour；　have　fancy　value；　on　the　other　hand；
  fidelity　to　promises；　benevolence　from　principle　（not　from
  instinct）；　have　an　intrinsic　worth。　Neither　nature　nor　art　contains
  anything　which　in　default　of　these　it　could　put　in　their　place；　for
  their　worth　consists　not　in　the　effects　which　spring　from　them；　not　in
  the　use　and　advantage　which　they　secure；　but　in　the　disposition　of
  mind；　that　is；　the　maxims　of　the　will　which　are　ready　to　manifest
  themselves　in　such　actions；　even　though　they　should　not　have　the
  desired　effect。　These　actions　also　need　no　recommendation　from　any
  subjective　taste　or　sentiment；　that　they　may　be　looked　on　with
  immediate　favour　and　satisfaction：　they　need　no　immediate　propension
  or　feeling　for　them；　they　exhibit　the　will　that　performs　them　as　an
  object　of　an　immediate　respect；　and　nothing　but　reason　is　required
  to　impose　them　on　the　will；　not　to　flatter　it　into　them；　which；　in　the
  case　of　duties；　would　be　a　contradiction。　This　estimation　therefore
  shows　that　the　worth　of　such　a　disposition　is　dignity；　and　places　it
  infinitely　above　all　value；　with　which　it　cannot　for　a　moment　be
  brought　into　comparison　or　competition　without　as　it　were　violating
  its　sanctity。
  What　then　is　it　which　justifies　virtue　or　the　morally　good
  disposition；　in　making　such　lofty　claims？　It　is　nothing　less　than
  the　privilege　it　secures　to　the　rational　being　of　participating　in　the
  giving　of　universal　laws；　by　which　it　qualifies　him　to　be　a　member
  of　a　possible　kingdom　of　ends；　a　privilege　to　which　he　was　already
  destined　by　his　own　nature　as　being　an　end　in　himself　and；　on　that
  account；　legislating　in　the　kingdom　of　ends；　free　as　regards　all
  laws　of　physical　nature；　and　obeying　those　only　which　he　himself
  gives；　and　by　which　his　maxims　can　belong　to　a　system　of　universal
  law；　to　which　at　the　same　time　he　submits　himself。　For　nothing　has　any
  worth　except　what　the　law　assigns　it。　Now　the　legislation　itself　which
  assigns　the　worth　of　everything　must　for　that　very　reason　possess
  dignity；　that　is　an　unconditional　incomparable　worth；　and　the　word
  respect　alone　supplies　a　becoming　expression　for　the　esteem　which　a
  rational　being　must　have　for　it。　Autonomy　then　is　the　basis　of　the
  dignity　of　human　and　of　every　rational　nature。
  The　three　modes　of　presenting　the　principle　of　morality　that　have
  been　adduced　are　at　bottom　only　so　many　formulae　of　the　very　same　law；
  and　each　of　itself　involves　the　other　two。　There　is；　however；　a
  difference　in　them；　but　it　is　rather　subjectively　than　objectively
  practical；　intended　namely　to　bring　an　idea　of　the　reason　nearer　to
  intuition　（by　means　of　a　certain　analogy）　and　thereby　nearer　to
  feeling。　All　maxims；　in　fact；　have：
  1。　A　form；　consisting　in　universality；　and　in　this　view　the
  formula　of　the　moral　imperative　is　expressed　thus；　that　the　maxims
  must　be　so　chosen　as　if　they　were　to　serve　as　universal　laws　of
  nature。
  2。　A　matter；　namely；　an　end；　and　here　the　formula　says　that　the
  rational　being；　as　it　is　an　end　by　its　own　nature　and　therefore　an　end
  in　itself；　must　in　every　maxim　serve　as　the　condition　limiting　all
  merely　relative　and　arbitrary　ends。
  3。　A　complete　characterization