Now if a propensity to this [inversion] does lie in human nature, then there is in the human being a natural propensity to evil; and this propensity itself is morally evil, since it must ultimately be sought in a free power of choice, and hence is imputable. This evil is radical, since it corrupts the ground of all maxims, as natural propensity, it is also not to be extirpated through human forces, for this could only happen through good maxims - something that cannot take place if the subjective supreme ground of all maxims is presupposed to be corrupted. Yet it must equally be possible to overcome this evil, for it is found in the human being as acting freely.
How is this possible that a naturally evil human being should make himself into a good human being surpasses every concept of ours. For how can an evil tree bear good fruit? But, since by our previous admission a tree which was (in its predisposition) originally good did bring forth bad fruits, and since the fall from good into evil (if we seriously consider that evil originated from freedom) is no more comprehensible than the ascent from evil back to the good, then the possibility of this last cannot be disputed. For, in spite of that fall, the command that we ought to become better human beings still resounds unabated in our souls; consequently, we must also be capable of it, even if what we can do is itself insufficient and, by virtue of it, we only make ourselves receptive to a higher assistance inscrutable to us.
While #Kant was deeply convinced of the depravity of the will, he was equally committed to the hope of regeneration. No matter how all-encompassing the impulse to self-love might be, the germinal concept of meritorious action remained indelible within consciousness
#RichardBourke
Religion,AA6:37,44