While the example of suicide is similar, it is much weaker and does not produce a genuine contradiction. And insofar as humanity is a positive end in others, I must attempt to further their ends as well.
That is its only function. For an end to be objective, it would be necessary that we categorically pursue it.
He does not try to make out what shape a good character has and then draw conclusions about how we ought to act on that basis. The Categorical Imperative is universal and impartial -- universal because all people, in virtue of being rational, would act in precisely the same way, and impartial because their actions are not guided by their own biases, but because they respect the dignity and autonomy of every human being and do not put their own personal ambitions above the respect that others deserve.
Throughout his moral works, Kant returns time and again to the question of the method moral philosophy should employ when pursuing these aims. Even the taking of human life could be justified under certain circumstances. This appears to say that moral rightness is not a function of the value of intended or actual outcomes.
The only true guideline is human reason, and an enlightened person will follow his or her reason rather than the arbitrary edicts of self-proclaimed authorities. For example, the question may be about preserving the State from disaster by betraying a person who stands towards another in a relation, such as that of father and son [i.
By contrast, the second imperative does not depend on whether you have some desire.
This is, firstly, the concept of a will that does not operate through the influence of factors outside of this responsiveness to apparent reasons. Moreover, the disposition is to overcome obstacles to moral behavior that Kant thought were ineradicable features of human nature. The man asks himself how the universality of such a thing works.