Do you agree with Kant that the presence or absence of a natural inclination cannot affect the moral quality of actions done from duty (for example, that being sympathetic cannot make an action more moral, and being unsympathetic cannot make an action less moral)?

In Chapter One of the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, Kant contrasts a person who preserves his life because he is naturally inclined to with a person who preserves his life from the motive of duty; or a person who is charitable toward others out of natural sympathy with a person who lacks sympathy but is charitable from the motive of duty. Explain how Kant characterizes the difference between these people (you can use either example, or both, or others as you choose), and why he claims that only actions done from duty have genuine moral worth. Do you agree with the claim that only actions done from duty have genuine moral worth? Do you agree with Kant that the presence or absence of a natural inclination cannot affect the moral quality of actions done from duty (for example, that being sympathetic cannot make an action more moral, and being unsympathetic cannot make an action less moral)? Argue thoroughly and carefully for your position.