This is precisely what Nietzsche says about Kant:
[size=95]“I insist that one should finally stop confusing the philosophical workers, and scientific men in general, with the philosopher […]. Those philosophical workers after the noble model of Kant and Hegel need to establish some great body or other of existing value-estimations–that is to say erstwhile value-positings, value-creations, which have come to rule and are called ‘truths’ for some time–and force it into formulas, be it in the realm of logic or of politics (morals) or of art. […] The philosophers proper however are commanders and lawgivers: they say ‘thus it shall be!’, they first determine the Whereto? and For what? of man and avail themselves therein of the preliminary work of all the philosophical workers, all the overpowerers of the past,–they reach for the future with creative hands, and all that was and is becomes for them a means, a tool, a hammer therein.” (Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 211, my translation.)[/size]
Kant was basically “just” an establisher and formulator of the value-positings of Plato. But yes, they are inherent–inherent in the herd type, or the slave type… Plato legislated those values–exoterically–for the whole of humanity.
[size=95]“‘The large majority of men,’ the human herd in Nietzsche’s impolite words, constitute one type, and the morality that fits them tends toward the universal because the large majority stands in fear of the exception or the exceptional. The large majority, needing the comfort of the universal, utilizes the power of the universal to rule over and eventually rule out the threatening exception. Moreover–and this will be a major point–Platonism served the morality of the large majority. Universally valid moral rules, valid for all people at all times, can support themselves on the Platonic rational principle founded on the Good, on God–on some cosmic spider in Nietzsche’s language. The contest between Plato and Nietzsche regarding morality takes on a historic dimension: Plato’s strength and power supported a moral teaching that sided with the large majority and set all subsequent philosophers and theologians on the same track. But now the sway of that teaching elicits a philosophic protest that advocates a new moral teaching, one that sides with the other moral type, the only other type, the exceptions.” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 71-72.)[/size]
The system of morality and ethics that Kant uncovered and presented in a systematic manner is not inherent in all of humanity, let alone in reality. Human reason is a product of (pre)history, after all…