Reason necessarily expresses itself through emotions and emotions are healthy only insofar as they are expressions of reason.

Freedom is an unprovable but unavoidable presupposition, not an article of faith.

It is probably not a good idea to ask someone to expound a position they do not accept and do not feel they even fully understand.

No theory about our bodies as mere objects of observation and calculation (as distinct from partners in communicative interaction, assumed to be free) can comprehend human nature.

Kant does not think there is anything wrong with being beneficent from sympathy. He thinks we have a duty to cultivate sympathetic feelings by participating in the situations of others and acquiring an understanding of them. He thinks we also have a duty to make ourselves into the kind of person for whom the recognition that something is our duty would be a sufficient incentive to do it (if no other incentives were available to us). That's what he means by "the duty to act from the motive of duty".

I don't think Kant's theory looks bad to people except insofar as they have misunderstood it (for instance, as heartless and ironheaded, or as committed to an absurd metaphysical conception of freedom that violates Kant's own philosophy).

What I most fear now is that within a century or so there may not be any human future at all.