Kant’s statement that an act out of responsibility can non be in struggle with itself or with any other will moving out of responsibility derives from the construct he puts Forth of the internal rule. A will can non conflict itself if it determines itself a priori. By finding its ethical motives before the benefit of experience. it determines itself merely that it exists as it is. Intuitively. anything pure can non conflict with itself merely as the thought of good can non conflict with itself and be someway partially bad ( 437 ) .
Therefore by merely being. without any other influence finding it. the will is an terminal in itself ( 437 ) . A will moving out of responsibility. or in other words on its ain internal rules. can non conflict with another will merely because it does non depend on the other will. In order to conflict. something must first interact. And if two volitions are moving in conformity with responsibility. so they each recognize each other as an terminal in itself. and hence do non interact on the degree of morality ( 438 ) .
Merely as a self-sufficing small town with no roads taking to or from can non conflict with another small town merely because it needs non and can non interact. a self-sufficing will. and hence determined with no external influence. can besides non conflict with anther will moving out of responsibility.
Though if something is non self-sufficing. it requires another object to carry through its terminals. As with the small town. if it needs to suppress a adjacent village’s farming area in order to feed itself. struggle arises. Similarly. should a will non be determined a priori. but alternatively based on external fortunes. so a will must utilize another will to carry through its demands. and hence would conflict with the liberty of the 2nd will.