[Sample of INTP writing]
The Groundwork preface begins with identifying the essence of morality in general, this is where Kant identified the fact that the essence of morality is freedom. And this identification seems pretty objective to me. And I don't see where Kant ever claimed that selfishness and unselfishness are essentially the same, that is, their underlying essence is freedom or something else. Where is the commonality between them? Their definitions as "concern vs. unconcern for the welfare of others" seems pretty polarized to me. What is at essence here is the matter of inclination vs. duty. Kant's example of the philanthropist shows that unselfishness is not necessarily moral since his is only a matter of inclination, he is naturally inclined to helping others. Thus your statement, "As to what morality is about essentially: I find that it is the contrast
between excessive selfishness and unselfishness" turns out to be fallacious. Your focus on the "excessiveness" of selfishness identifies your standpoint as Aristotelian, thus the fallacy involved here is known as the "fallacy of the Golden Mean," among other things.
See http://www.nizkor. org/features/ fallacies/ middle-ground. html.
Furthermore, Kant was essentially focused not only on establishing the objective grounds for moral law, but also its subjective grounds: respect for this same law, a respect which can never be granted to inclination. The objective grounds, however, is not merely its pure formality but also its universality - that is, such grounds must be a priori.
"A maxim is the subjective principle of volition. The objective
principle (i.e., that which would also serve subjectively as a
practical principle to all rational beings if reason had full power
over the faculty of desire) is the practical law."
Thus a subjective principle for one (a maxim) becomes an objective principle for all (a law) through this very formality.