1. First question: What is the relationship between morality and freedom? There is an answer to your second question: freedom is the basis of morality.

2. Why is freedom the basis of morality? Because only free will can become the subject of moral responsibility. For example, if the subject has no freedom, just like in nature, and can only obey the laws of nature, such as eating when hungry and drinking when thirsty, then at this time, the hungry or thirsty person robs others There is nothing to blame for the food and drink, because he has no freedom and no way. He can only obey the laws of nature, like a machine. How can he be responsible for his actions?

3. However, in practice (practice in Kant’s philosophy usually refers to moral behavior, which is different from practice in Marxist philosophy), although there are people like those mentioned in Article 2, But there will always be the opposite example, that is, when he is hungry or thirsty, not only will he not snatch food or drinks from others, but on the contrary, he will often give food and drinks to those who need them more. At this time, this kind of person obviously does not follow the natural law, but the law of freedom, or the moral law. Generally speaking, morality seems to have a compulsory meaning, but Kant believes that this kind of moral law is self-chosen and self-legislated, so it is free at the same time. Only under the premise of freedom can his actions have moral significance. Otherwise, even if he has done good deeds, if a person is destined to do only good deeds, then what moral value does all his good deeds have? Good thing, but unable to resist, that's all. It is precisely because of this that Kant said that freedom is the basis of morality.

4. In fact, the people in Articles 2 and 3 are all born free (this was the common sense of the Enlightenment movement at that time). In other words, people in Articles 2 and 3 have both the freedom to do good and the freedom to do evil. However, the former ultimately obeys the laws of nature and does not show true freedom; while the latter does not passively obey the laws of nature, so it can realize its freedom to choose what is good.

5. Therefore, in Kant’s view, the kind of person mentioned in Article 2, who only knows how to obey the laws of nature, is not free, and his performance is not worthy of a truly rational being. . Only people like Article 3 can be free people and truly rational people.