Are we possessed by nature, or possessed by the objective?
Kant said we are possessed by nature–the objective reality that, despite whatever attributes we may give it, will never act contrary to its nature, which is its natural identity.
We use the natural-identity model to define free will, or the authority to act with a defined objective. Naturally, then, the actor is strictly liable for the action taken, defined by the measurable results whether they were intended or not.
The strict liability is the categorical imperative–the objective reality whether it is intended or not.
Kant explains that objective reality is nomenological. The knowledge of it is a pre-existing condition. Even when the actor measures effects contrary to the objective, the effects are known to be, then, objective reality. The nomenology always logically was, and being wrong just confirms it, despite whatever the objective may have been, or may still be. In a moral dimension, the actor is then fully culpable, with ignorance of the law being no defense because acting contrary to the law and its natural existence confirm to be the same thing (the noumenon), having perfect symmetry on demand.
Kant explains that morality is not a relative option. It is categorically imperative. Nature possesses us, and just because we can know how it works does not release us from liability, but confirms the imperative value–the natural identity of the authority–to act.
We see how, even with an ontological interpretation, nature possesses the pursuit of the objective reality. We are never in possession of it. It possesses us.
Science admits that the use of the method can out pace the moral capacity to use it without doing harm, which can happen when reality is possessed by the objective.
When we say that nature selects the survival of species, for example, we are saying that reality is possessed by the objective, not the other way around.