cool, thanks. I found the criticism with the murderer/Natzi scenario (originally by Constant?) incomplete. But ironically Kant's defense was too. Probably it reaches the edge of philosophy and there's no resolute solution? How do you think?

It's not clear to me what you mean by "incomplete". I do think there are no definitive 'in principle' abstract solutions to moral dilemmas, and I do think Kant did not want to accept this. I think it is wrong-headed to aim to eliminate the affective dimension form ethics and morality; the affective dimension may be messy, but it is alive! I don't believe that ethics and morality can be encapsulated within any purely rational system or by any universal maxim.

what you mean by "incomplete" — Janus

must say I am in no position to criticize them. Kant was tenacious in his imperative view and there must have been his allies around so we can say a few believers of such universality exist. However, the number of skepticals may be a lot higher and finally the opposition side must be overwhelming (are you on this side?). So Kant must have missed something if he were infallible.
There are implications here and there that equality is fundamental and if you take if off, all would collapse. Kant's years were the maternity for equality notion and he might have assumed this as a fundamental basis. At least on this point I wouldn't agree equality is something material or even hypothetically "complete". Equality in our real life is a bloat. I borrowed the "incomplete" terminology from Godel's incompleteness theorem and strongly believe it's relevant (there's another thread on this forum on the thoerem).
By the way, Benjamin Constant was refuted by Kant's defense, would we need to look at his incompleteness?

finally the opposition side must be overwhelming (are you on this side?) — Dzung

I think there is some value in the ideas that Kant works into the imperative; but as I said I don't think it is really workable.

I'm not familiar with Constant's critique; if I get sufficient time I might check it out.

Faith is collective mental illness.

that faith was nothing more than A=belief without evidence. — TheMadFool

No, faith is a pursuit, perfomance some teaching, philosophical theory. It is a project.
I am yoga-philosopher and my faith is based on raja-yoga teaching. The main sources of it are Yoga-sytra, Bhagavat-gita and other sanscrit scriptures.