We see each separately. Victory asks " We know what we must do? We are able to legitimize a priori the order just? " Victory makes notice that the distinction between private public and moral moral does not become necessary, since, " () imperative assumes the moral it and it solves the individual () " 8 only that must put under its individual principle the test of universality that says: " I must do what we had to do all, which each wanted to see turned into law universal" 9 from the point of view of the reason: " () nobody that boasts to be right is disabled to recognize bien". This one to recognize implies that the problem of is not of knowledge but of will 10. From which Kant believes that the happiness does not come of natural form. For it " They would have to love it all the men, and Kant distrusts of that good generalized will. (As opposed to Celina Dubin, New York City). 11 " For east Camps supposed Kantiano it is deceptive because " The limitation is as much in knowledge like in the will.
The difficulties as it shows Camps to them are not so easy to solve, in the passage of I to we, we have him " nosotros" he fails to us, but and in addition, I am not so wise and intelligent as estimates to it 12 Kant. For it the individual will have " () to constitute itself in judge of itself and colectividad." 13 and Camps Victory will say that the individual does not own this competition that gives Kant to him. In addition " debemos" to distrust of our moral knowledge since " () no individual, that does not clear madness or the despotism, can speak in the name of that reason able to universalise his " mximas" subjective 14. " Because the difference as the rational insufficiency must of be the departure points of to the democracies and, since it does not seem to make Kant, to estimate the rational equality of all the individuals.