and I for one am quite shocked at how people here write baseless fan-fiction about Kant.

I mean no offence >>42, but one has to wonder whether you ever read a single line of Kant in full. Kant very much acknowledges human nature as what it is; however the Categorical Imperative's primary purpose is to liberate people from reliance on an external authority (God, Scripture, Tradition, Priesthood, Monarchs) when it comes to judging one's own actions as to whether they are morally "good" or "bad": By applying the Categorical Imperative to your own actions, he asserts, you can find out whether they are morally flawed or not, by yourself, instead of having someone else impose their judgment upon you (sapere aude!). How so? Because the Categorical Imperative is an effective logical apparatus to judge whether an action will benefit you and the social group around you. Seeing how man very much operates as a zoon politikon, that ends up being less unrealistic than the reductionist Randian self-interest as a moral imperative. Kant may seem naive at first glance, but he was well aware of "how the world works", videlicet "Towards Eternal Peace"...