kant

The three subsidiary formulas Ia, II, and IIIa are seen to be "logically equivalent- in the context of the whole. These formulas are subsidiary and are derived from the supreme principle. The common element to both Formula I and III is that they are devoid of any teleological considerations. There are no references to objects or ends of the action within these formulations. "Autonomy is the sole principle of ethics- This would suggest that Formula III and not Formula I is the supreme moral principle. What is the distinction and difference that allows us to make this assessment? Paton includes the Formula of the Law of Autonomy as an imperative, but Duncan argues that this is wrong. Duncan replies that although Kant does formulate the Principle of Autonomy in terms of an imperative, it does not add meaning in a significant way to Formula I. Paton's argument is that Formula III is markedly different from Formula I and so needs to be recognized as its own version of the imperative. Paton suggests that if rational nature were merely subject to a universal law, then it could not be free. Instead we need the Formula of autonomy, the rational nature must also be the legislator of the law, for freedom and subsequently morality to be possible. Williams and Duncan disagree. They argue that the importance of the principle of autonomy lies exclusively in its function as stating fundamental presupposition of morality. This presupposition, upon which the Categorical Imperative itself must rest. (Diagram, p.36). After settling the various notions of what the categorical imperative is, Williams turns his attention to how the Categorical Imperative, in terms of Formula I, is traditionally understood. He summarizes Ewing's position as: 1) the act is determined by its motive 2) the maxim is formulated without reference to material ends and 3) the categorical imperative can be used as a test for moral value of actions.