re reason； be practical； that it is possible for it to be legislative。
REMARK II。
To be happy is necessarily the wish of every finite rational being； and this； therefore； is inevitably a determining principle of its faculty of desire。 For we are not in possession originally of satisfaction with our whole existence… a bliss which would imply a consciousness of our own independent self…sufficiency this is a problem imposed upon us by our own finite nature； because we have wants and these wants regard the matter of our desires； that is； something that is relative to a subjective feeling of pleasure or pain； which determines what we need in order to be satisfied with our condition。 But just because this material principle of determination can only be empirically known by the subject； it is impossible to regard this problem as a law； for a law being objective must contain the very same principle of determination of the will in all cases and for all rational beings。 For； although the notion of happiness is in every case the foundation of practical relation of the objects to the desires； yet it is only a general name for the subjective determining principles； and determines nothing specifically； whereas this is what alone we are concerned with in this practical problem； which cannot be solved at all without such specific determination。 For it is every man's own special feeling of pleasure and pain that decides in what he is to place his happiness； and even in the same subject this will vary with the difference of his wants according as this feeling changes； and thus a law which is subjectively necessary （as a law of nature） is objectively a very contingent practical principle； which can and must be very different in different subjects and therefore can never furnish a law； since； in the desire for happiness it is not the form （of conformity to law） that is decisive； but simply the matter； namely； whether I am to expect pleasure in following the law； and how much。 Principles of self…love may； indeed； contain universal precepts of skill （how to find means to accomplish one's purpose）； but in that case they are merely theoretical principles；* as； for example； how he who would like to eat bread should contrive a mill； but practical precepts founded on them can never be universal； for the determining principle of the desire is based on the feeling pleasure and pain； which can never be supposed to be universally directed to the same objects。
*Propositions which in mathematics or physics are called practical ought properly to be called technical。 For they For they have nothing to do with the determination of the theoretical they only point out how the certain must is to be produced and are； therefore； just as theoretical as any propositions which express the connection of a cause with an effect。 Now whoever chooses the effect must also choose the cause。
Even supposing； however； that all finite rational beings were thoroughly agreed as to what were the objects of their feelings of pleasure and pain； and also as to the means which they must employ to attain the one and avoid the other； still； they could by no means set up the principle of self…love as a practical law； for this unanimity itself would be only contingent。 The principle of determination would still be only subjectively valid and merely empirical； and would not possess the necessity which is conceived in every law； namely； an objective necessity arising from a priori grounds； unless； indeed； we hold this necessity to be not at all practical； but merely physical； viz。； that our action is as inevitably determined by our inclination； as yawning when we see others yawn。 It would be better to maintain that there are no practical laws at all； but only counsels for the service of our desires； than to raise merely subjective principles to the rank of practical laws； which have objective necessity； and not merely subjective； and which must be known by reason a priori； not by experience （however empirically universal this may be）。 Even the rules of corresponding phenomena are only called laws of nature （e。g。； the mechanical laws）； when we either know them really a priori； or （as in the case of chemical laws） suppose that they would be known a priori from objective grounds if our insight reached further。 But in the case of merely subjective practical principles； it is expressly made a condition that they rest； not on objective； but on subjective conditions of choice； and hence that they must always be represented as mere maxims； never as practical laws。 This second remark seems at first sight to be mere verbal refinement； but it defines the terms of the most important distinction which can come into consideration in practical investigations。
IV。 THEOREM II。
A rational being cannot regard his maxims as practical universal laws； unless he conceives them as principles which determine the will； not by their matter； but by their form only。 By the matter of a practical principle I mean the object of the will。 This object is either the determining ground of the will or it is not。 In the former case the rule of the will is subjected to an empirical condition （viz。； the relation of the determining idea to the feeling of pleasure and pain）； consequently it can not be a practical law。 Now； when we abstract from a law all matter； i。e。； every object of the will （as a determining principle）； nothing is left but the mere form of a universal legislation。 Therefore； either a rational being cannot conceive his subjective practical principles； that is； his maxims； as being at the same time universal laws； or he must suppose that their mere form； by which they are fitted for universal legislation； is alone what makes them practical laws。
REMARK。
The commonest understanding can distinguish without instruction what form of maxim is adapted for universal legislation； and what is not。 Suppose； for example； that I have made it my maxim to increase my fortune by every safe means。 Now； I have a deposit in my hands； the owner of which is dead and has left no writing about it。 This is just the case for my maxim。 I desire then to know whether that maxim can also bold good as a universal practical law。 I apply it； therefore； to the present case； and ask whether it could take the form of a law； and consequently whether I can by my maxim at the same time give such a law as this； that everyone may deny a deposit of which no one can produce a proof。 I at once become aware that such a principle； viewed as a law； would annihilate itself； because the result would be that there would be no deposits。 A practical law which I recognise as such must be qualified for universal legislation； this is an identical proposition and； therefore； self…evident。 Now； if I say that my will is subject to a practical law； I cannot adduce my inclination （e。g。； in the present case my avarice） as a principle of determination fitted to be a universal practical law； for this is so far from being fitted for a universal legislation that； if put in the form of a universal law； it would destroy itself。 It is； therefore； surprising that intelligent men could have thought of calling the desire of happiness a universal practical law on the ground that the desire is universal； and； therefore； also the maxim by which everyone makes this desire determine his will。 For whereas in other cases a universal law of nature makes everything harmonious； here； on the contrary； if we attribute to the maxim the universality of a law； the extreme opposite of harmony will follow； the greatest opposition and the complete destruction of the maxim itself and its purpose。 For； in that case； the will of all has not one and the same object； but everyone has his own （his private welfare）； which may accidentally accord with the purposes of others which are equally selfish； but it is far from sufficing for a law； because the occasional exceptions which one is permitted to make are endless； and cannot be definitely embraced in one universal rule。 In this manner； then； results a harmony like that which a certain satirical poem depicts as existing between a married couple bent on going to ruin； 〃O； marvellous harmony； what he wishes； she wishes also〃； or like what is said of the pledge of Francis I to the Emperor Charles V； 〃What my brother Charles wishes that I wish also〃 （viz。； Milan）。 Empirical principles of determination are not fit for any universal external legislation； but just as little for internal； for each man makes his own subject the foundation of his inclination； and in the same subject sometimes one inclination； sometimes another； has the preponderance。 To discover a law which would govern them all under this condition； namely； bringing them all into harmony； is quite impossible。
V。 PROBLEM I。
Supposing that the mere legislative form of maxims is alone the sufficient determining principle of a will； to find the nature of the will which can be determined by it alone。 Since the bare form of the law can only be conceived by reason； and is； therefore； not an object of the senses； and consequently does not belong to the class of phenomena； it follow