Kants Ethics

I will explain my interpretation of Kant ethics and epistimology in PLAIN ENGLISH.

Ethics

see Criticism from Nietzsche,

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Ibid., 422)

"What are Kant's arguments for the Categorical Imperative? First, consider an example. Consider the person who needs to borrow money and is considering making a false promise to pay it back. The maxim that could be invoked is, "when I need of money, borrow it, promising to repay it, even though I do not intend to." But when we apply the universality test to this maxim it becomes clear that if everyone were to act in this fashion, the institution of promising itself would be undermined. The borrower makes a promise, willing that there be no such thing as promises. Thus such an action fails the universality test."

Kant basically says this, action is wrong because it is wrong if everyone does it. It is wrong to kill because if everyone kills then we are left with world destruction which is bad, so killing must be wrong in all circumstances to avoid the argument from heap.

My counter is this, 1) why is world destruction bad 2) killing one man is different from world destruction, so how does world destruction show killing one man is bad?

Duty

"We have seen that in order to be good, we must remove inclination and the consideration of any particular goal from our motivation to act. The act cannot be good if it arises from subjective impulse."

This is just plain ridiculous. People are not machines. Kant wants to turn everyone into machines. Don't all our actions and beliefs "see grey issues" stem from our psychological tendencies? Why do we act, but not for our impulses? Why should I do something when I am not compelled by anything but Kant?

priori, phenomenon, thing in itself

What kant says is this, even though he does not and CANT define existence.

But