In the Basic Argument that attempts to prove that one cannot be held truly and ultimately responsible for the actions they may make, an infinite regress at the end of the argument is employed. I have a little trouble understanding it.
The infinite regress goes as follows
You must have intentionally brought it about that you had the nature N, in which case you must have existed already with a prior nature in the light of which you intentionally brought it about that you had the nature N in light of which you intentionally brought it about that you are the way you are now.....
However, I am unable to comprehend what it essentially is saying. Is it that for me to have nature N, I should have had a nature M, in light of which I will discover that nature N is better than nature M, and thus I should accept N. But for me to do so, I should have had a nature P, in light of which I should have chosen the nature M and thus it goes on...
If such is true, I don't understand how it is not possible to terminate the regress by adding a premise that we all are born with a nature A. From which on, we can delve in self-exploration and reflection and arrive at the nature we want. (This is not a claim that this will necessitate that the agent becomes truly and ultimately morally responsible but just a question as to why the infinite regress is necessary.)
If the above argument is rejected by the claim that the nature A was caused, then is it not possible to utilize the premise that we are not born with any nature and all the understanding we get is simply learning how the world operates, consequently putting an end to the regress.