Can someone help translate this into simpler form kants catergorial imperative?

Question

Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were through his maxim always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends..... this is what i have so far Which practically states that act on rationality based decisions. If two people cannot come to a equal conclusion this could be solved by a rational debate. This leads to harmonizing our ends with all other humans and having/making moral decisions

Answer 1

The answer you seek is:
Do untu others as you would have them do unto you.

And further, the parties involved should be able to reach a resolution once the issue is seen in this light. If not, then possibly the judgement of society at large can give a resolution. But it will/must still be based upon this same categorical imperative.

Kant saw that a great "unhinging" of our philosophical basis for moral and scientific existence was underway. He (in simple terms) sought to right it. The outcome of his attempt would've frustrated him, had he've lived to see it. This is a large part of what I refer to as the ironic influence of philosophy.

He tried to uphold the historical standard that man sees himself as a part of the greater whole. He, unfortunately, helped lay the groundwork of man seeing himself as an individual acting against the world around him.

Answer 2

I can't exactly justify this, but i remember thinking it through and it seemed to make sense at the time. My memory of it isn't too good though, but i'll give it a go.

"Act only on that maxim that you can at the same time will that it become a universal law of nature."

In other words, it would be impossible for everyone to do the same, where the word "impossible" actually means literally that, not just "impossible" in the sense of unmanageable. For instance, an anti-abortionist could claim that abortion was wrong because it is impossible to will that one was aborted because then one would not exist and if everyone was aborted there would be no human race to will it.

The kingdom of ends formulation is for some reason supposed to be the same thing as the above quote. A simpler way of looking at the kingdom of ends formulation of the categorical imperative is that no-one should ever be simply used, but should be seen as an end in themselves. Therefore, the end never justifies the means.

Concerning the question of autonomy and heteronomy, there is some issue about being able to rule one's own will. I do remember that the only good thing that can exist is the will, according to Kant.

I'm really sorry, that's the best i can do right now.