If the categorical imperative is the "supreme principle," and treating humans as "ends in themselves" is a key tenet, and moral obligation stems from "autonomy," how do these three core ideas interrelate and mutually support each other within Kant's overall moral framework? Could one exist independently of the others in his philosophy?

Synthesized answer

The categorical imperative is identified as the "supreme principle of morality" [1]. Kant argues that every human being is an "end in himself or herself, never to be used as a means by others" [1]. Furthermore, moral obligation is presented as an expression of "the human capacity for autonomy or self-government" [1].

These three ideas are presented as foundational to Kant's moral framework [1]. The categorical imperative serves as the supreme principle [1]. Treating humans as ends in themselves is a tenet of this principle, and moral obligation stems from autonomy [1]. The passages state that moral obligation is an *expression* of autonomy [1], suggesting a direct link where autonomy is the source of this obligation.

The provided passages establish that the categorical imperative is the supreme principle, that humans are ends in themselves, and that moral obligation stems from autonomy [1]. They describe how these are presented within Kant's philosophy, but they do not explicitly detail how one could exist independently of the others, or provide an extensive analysis of their mutual support beyond stating their roles.

Synthesized from the book passages below. Chat with the book on Feynman for follow-up.