I think it is clear that what we ought to do has to be independent of our decisions about what to do, and independent of any procedures we might use in making such decisions.

Leaders of nations, and people whose wealth or fame gives them power over the lives of others quite often do more harm than good.

Kant does not regard freedom as an item of faith because it is too basic to our agency to be related to any end.

That Hegel's theory is derivative from Fichte's does not prevent it from being strikingly original and of independent value.

Kant does not think that the silly commandment "universalize your maxims" is the be-all and end-all of ethics or that it provides us with some sort of general decision procedure that is supposed to tell us what to do under all circumstances.

What is central to morality is rational self-constraint (acting from duty), in cease where there is no other incentive to do your duty except that the moral law commands it.

People who enjoy the privileges of success must use these privileges to benefit those who do not have them. These privileges constitute a deep hole they need to climb out of if they are to prevent its being the case that the world would have been better off if they had never been born.