Questioning Kant's Good, and the Means to this Good

I managed to get an interview with Immanuel Kant this week. Kant telephoned me from his bunk bed in heaven. Many thanks to the angels who contributed countless hours to translate Kant’s dialogue from his own private language.

Thomas Hamed: So can you sum up your political philosophy in three sentences?
Immanuel Kant: No

TH: Can I?
IK: Probably not without making false assumptions of my statements.

TH: Well, based on my reading of Perpetual Peace and Theory and Practice, I have come up with three statements:

1. Man uses morality to transcend his animalistic nature, and gains greater moral insight as time goes on.
2. A good government is one where the people’s morality aligns with the rulers’, and all understand and execute their duties.
3. Nations should federate to foster peace and understanding between each other, especially when those nations meet conditions in #2.

Am I right?

IK: You are (woefully) incomplete, inbreeding my philosophy with your own views by removing key qualifications I make throughout my work. Have you read my Critique of Pure Reason, Critique on Practical Reason, and the other thousands of pages I have penned? They give you a much fuller account of how I expect man to transcend his brutish nature, and how he must achieve it.

TH: I am sure they are enlightening. I want to ask you a few questions about the premises of your first statement.
IK: If you wish.

TH: From what I have read, you describe well how man can transcend, and why he may wish to transcend himself. Yet the very word “transcend” implies he is going somewhere he knows little about, possibly even this state’s existence. Comment on that.
IK: Man may not know consciously, but does know through his limited perception of time.

TH: Let’s accept that notion of time [it will take a semester to discuss this]. What’s the good man is moving towards?
IK: Harmony, for one thing. Moral harmony, to be precise. Peace is also a goal, as the more peace one has, the happier he is.

TH: And so you regard peace as a good in itself?
IK: Yes.

TH: Is peace “good” enough that it requires moral concord within a state?
IK: Undoubtedly.

Here, the translators quit work. I am a skeptic of Kant’s philosophy, as it assumes there is an objective “good”, and that the methods towards this good are just. I feel that Kant’s philosophy paints humanity with a broad brush stroke, and may loose the very diversity he defends in Perpetual Peace. Furthermore, I find disturbing his defense of individual duty towards a state. While duty is necessary for the orderly workings of a state, I remain unconvinced that it fosters a state’s moral advancement.