write a 5 page paper for this prompt:

"Let's adopt a few labels. "Radical Humeans" with regard to practical reason (which may
or may not include Hume himself) believe that strictly speaking there is no way for practical
reason to rationally criticize or otherwise evaluate any desires at all. (Strictly speaking, only
beliefs are subject to rational evaluation.) "Moderate Humeans" believe that "derivative" desires
(when I want something as a means to something else) are subject to rational evaluation, but
"ultimate" desires (when I simply want something for its own sake, or have a basic preference)
are never subject to rational evaluation. "Moderate Kantians" with regard to practical reason
believe that reason is capable of evaluating at least some ultimate or basic desires, while "radical
Kantians" with regard to practical reason believe that in principle, at least, reason is capable of
evaluating any desire or preference.
Who is right? (Or, if you think I have overlooked some important alternative here, then
describe it, and defend it!) Why?
And what difference--if any--does this make to the best overall account of morality?
Note: the point is not simply to compare and contrast these different accounts of
practical reason, but to argue for one position rather than another (whether by appeal to specific
examples, or by appeal to more general philosophical considerations), and then to indicate what
significance, if any, your position has for other parts of moral theory."

using this outline:

"I. Introduction

Briefly introduce the four positions: Radical Humeans, Moderate Humeans, Moderate Kantians, and Radical Kantians
State the intention to argue for one position and explore its implications on the overall account of morality
II. The Four Positions on Practical Reason
A. Radical Humeans
1. Practical reason cannot evaluate desires
2. Only beliefs are subject to rational evaluation
B. Moderate Humeans
1. Derivative desires can be rationally evaluated
2. Ultimate desires are not subject to rational evaluation
C. Moderate Kantians
1. Reason can evaluate some ultimate or basic desires
D. Radical Kantians
1. Reason is capable of evaluating any desire or preference

III. Arguing for Moderate Kantianism
A. Critique of Radical Humeanism
1. Inability to distinguish between irrational and rational desires
2. Problematic consequences in real-life situations
B. Critique of Moderate Humeanism
1. Arbitrary distinction between derivative and ultimate desires
2. Difficulty in determining which desires are "ultimate"
C. Critique of Radical Kantianism
1. Overreach of reason in evaluating all desires
2. Difficulty in applying this position to complex human desires
D. Strengths of Moderate Kantianism
1. Balance between reason and desires
2. Capability to address moral dilemmas

IV. Implications of Moderate Kantianism on Moral Theory
A. Role of practical reason in morality
1. Evaluating the rationality of desires
2. Grounding moral behavior in rationality
B. Moral principles and duties
1. Kant's categorical imperative as a guiding principle
2. Universality and consistency in moral actions
C. Moral development and education
1. Cultivating rationality and moral reasoning
2. Encouraging self-reflection and deliberation

V. Potential Objections and Responses
A. Objection: Moderate Kantianism is too demanding
1. Response: The importance of developing practical wisdom over time
B. Objection: Moderate Kantianism neglects emotions and intuitions
1. Response: Emotions and intuitions can inform reason, but are not the sole basis for moral judgment

VI. Conclusion

Reiterate the argument for Moderate Kantianism
Highlight the significance of this position on moral theory
Acknowledge that further exploration and refinement may be needed"