fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals-第5章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



wants　and　inclinations；　so　that　it　may　escape　from　the　perplexity　of

opposite　claims　and　not　run　the　risk　of　losing　all　genuine　moral

principles　through　the　equivocation　into　which　it　easily　falls。

Thus；　when　practical　reason　cultivates　itself；　there　insensibly　arises

in　it　a　dialetic　which　forces　it　to　seek　aid　in　philosophy；　just　as

happens　to　it　in　its　theoretic　use；　and　in　this　case；　therefore；　as

well　as　in　the　other；　it　will　find　rest　nowhere　but　in　a　thorough

critical　examination　of　our　reason。

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SECOND　SECTION



　　　　　　　　　TRANSITION　FROM　POPULAR　MORAL　PHILOSOPHY

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　TO　THE　METAPHYSIC　OF　MORALS



　　If　we　have　hitherto　drawn　our　notion　of　duty　from　the　common　use

of　our　practical　reason；　it　is　by　no　means　to　be　inferred　that　we　have

treated　it　as　an　empirical　notion。　On　the　contrary；　if　we　attend　to

the　experience　of　men's　conduct；　we　meet　frequent　and；　as　we　ourselves

allow；　just　complaints　that　one　cannot　find　a　single　certain　example

of　the　disposition　to　act　from　pure　duty。　Although　many　things　are

done　in　conformity　with　what　duty　prescribes；　it　is　nevertheless

always　doubtful　whether　they　are　done　strictly　from　duty；　so　as　to

have　a　moral　worth。　Hence　there　have　at　all　times　been　philosophers

who　have　altogether　denied　that　this　disposition　actually　exists　at

all　in　human　actions；　and　have　ascribed　everything　to　a　more　or　less

refined　self…love。　Not　that　they　have　on　that　account　questioned　the

soundness　of　the　conception　of　morality；　on　the　contrary；　they　spoke

with　sincere　regret　of　the　frailty　and　corruption　of　human　nature；

which；　though　noble　enough　to　take　its　rule　an　idea　so　worthy　of

respect；　is　yet　weak　to　follow　it　and　employs　reason　which　ought　to

give　it　the　law　only　for　the　purpose　of　providing　for　the　interest

of　the　inclinations；　whether　singly　or　at　the　best　in　the　greatest

possible　harmony　with　one　another。

　　In　fact；　it　is　absolutely　impossible　to　make　out　by　experience

with　complete　certainty　a　single　case　in　which　the　maxim　of　an　action；

however　right　in　itself；　rested　simply　on　moral　grounds　and　on　the

conception　of　duty。　Sometimes　it　happens　that　with　the　sharpest

self…examination　we　can　find　nothing　beside　the　moral　principle　of

duty　which　could　have　been　powerful　enough　to　move　us　to　this　or

that　action　and　to　so　great　a　sacrifice；　yet　we　cannot　from　this　infer

with　certainty　that　it　was　not　really　some　secret　impulse　of

self…love；　under　the　false　appearance　of　duty；　that　was　the　actual

determining　cause　of　the　will。　We　like　them　to　flatter　ourselves　by

falsely　taking　credit　for　a　more　noble　motive；　whereas　in　fact　we

can　never；　even　by　the　strictest　examination；　get　completely　behind

the　secret　springs　of　action；　since；　when　the　question　is　of　moral

worth；　it　is　not　with　the　actions　which　we　see　that　we　are

concerned；　but　with　those　inward　principles　of　them　which　we　do　not

see。

　　Moreover；　we　cannot　better　serve　the　wishes　of　those　who　ridicule

all　morality　as　a　mere　chimera　of　human　imagination　over　stepping

itself　from　vanity；　than　by　conceding　to　them　that　notions　of　duty

must　be　drawn　only　from　experience　（as　from　indolence；　people　are

ready　to　think　is　also　the　case　with　all　other　notions）；　for　or　is

to　prepare　for　them　a　certain　triumph。　I　am　willing　to　admit　out　of

love　of　humanity　that　even　most　of　our　actions　are　correct；　but　if

we　look　closer　at　them　we　everywhere　come　upon　the　dear　self　which

is　always　prominent；　and　it　is　this　they　have　in　view　and　not　the

strict　command　of　duty　which　would　often　require　self…denial。

Without　being　an　enemy　of　virtue；　a　cool　observer；　one　that　does　not

mistake　the　wish　for　good；　however　lively；　for　its　reality；　may

sometimes　doubt　whether　true　virtue　is　actually　found　anywhere　in

the　world；　and　this　especially　as　years　increase　and　the　judgement

is　partly　made　wiser　by　experience　and　partly；　also；　more　acute　in

observation。　This　being　so；　nothing　can　secure　us　from　falling　away

altogether　from　our　ideas　of　duty；　or　maintain　in　the　soul　a

well…grounded　respect　for　its　law；　but　the　clear　conviction　that

although　there　should　never　have　been　actions　which　really　sprang　from

such　pure　sources；　yet　whether　this　or　that　takes　place　is　not　at

all　the　question；　but　that　reason　of　itself；　independent　on　all

experience；　ordains　what　ought　to　take　place；　that　accordingly　actions

of　which　perhaps　the　world　has　hitherto　never　given　an　example；　the

feasibility　even　of　which　might　be　very　much　doubted　by　one　who　founds

everything　on　experience；　are　nevertheless　inflexibly　commanded　by

reason；　that；　e。g。；　even　though　there　might　never　yet　have　been　a

sincere　friend；　yet　not　a　whit　the　less　is　pure　sincerity　in

friendship　required　of　every　man；　because；　prior　to　all　experience；

this　duty　is　involved　as　duty　in　the　idea　of　a　reason　determining

the　will　by　a　priori　principles。

　　When　we　add　further　that；　unless　we　deny　that　the　notion　of　morality

has　any　truth　or　reference　to　any　possible　object；　we　must　admit

that　its　law　must　be　valid；　not　merely　for　men　but　for　all　rational

creatures　generally；　not　merely　under　certain　contingent　conditions　or

with　exceptions　but　with　absolute　necessity；　then　it　is　clear　that

no　experience　could　enable　us　to　infer　even　the　possibility　of　such

apodeictic　laws。　For　with　what　right　could　we　bring　into　unbounded

respect　as　a　universal　precept　for　every　rational　nature　that　which

perhaps　holds　only　under　the　contingent　conditions　of　humanity？　Or　how

could　laws　of　the　determination　of　our　will　be　regarded　as　laws　of　the

determination　of　the　will　of　rational　beings　generally；　and　for　us

only　as　such；　if　they　were　merely　empirical　and　did　not　take　their

origin　wholly　a　priori　from　pure　but　practical　reason？

　　Nor　could　anything　be　more　fatal　to　morality　than　that　we　should

wish　to　derive　it　from　examples。　For　every　example　of　it　that　is　set

before　me　must　be　first　itself　tested　by　principles　of　morality；

whether　it　is　worthy　to　serve　as　an　original　example；　i。e。；　as　a

pattern；　but　by　no　means　can　it　authoritatively　furnish　the　conception

of　morality。　Even　the　Holy　One　of　the　Gospels　must　first　be　compared

with　our　ideal　of　moral　perfection　before　we　can　recognise　Him　as

such；　and　so　He　says　of　Himself；　〃Why　call　ye　Me　（whom　you　see）

good；　none　is　good　（the　model　of　good）　but　God　only　（whom　ye　do　not

see）？〃　But　whence　have　we　the　conception　of　God　as　the　supreme　good？

Simply　from　the　idea　of　moral　perfection；　which　reason　frames　a　priori

and　connects　inseparably　with　the　notion　of　a　free　will。　Imitation

finds　no　place　at　all　in　morality；　and　examples　serve　only　for

encouragement；　i。e。；　they　put　beyond　doubt　the　feasibility　of　what　the

law　commands；　they　make　visible　that　which　the　practical　rule

expresses　more　generally；　but　they　can　never　authorize　us　to　set　aside

the　true　original　which　lies　in　reason　and　to　guide　ourselves　by

examples。

　　If　then　there　is　no　genuine　supreme　principle　of　morality　but　what

must　rest　simply　on　pure　reason；　independent　of　all　experience；　I

think　it　is　not　necessary　even　to　put　the　question　whether　it　is

good　to　exhibit　these　concepts　in　their　generality　（in　abstracto）　as

they　are　established　a　priori　along　with　the　principles　belonging　to

them；　if　our　knowledge　is　to　be　distinguished　from　the　vulgar　and　to

be　called　philosophical。

　　In　our　times　indeed　this　might　perhaps　be　necessary；　for　if　we

collected　votes　whether　pure　rational　knowledge　separated　from

everything　empirical；　that　is　to　say；　metaphysic　of　morals；　or　whether

popular　practical　philosophy　is　to　be　preferred；　it　is　easy　to　guess

which　side　would　preponderate。

　　This　descending　to　popular　notions　is　certainly　very　commendable；　if

the　ascent　to　the　principles　of　pure　reason　has　first　taken　place

and　been　satisfactorily　accomplished。　This　implies　that　we　first　found

ethics　on　metaphysics；　and　then；　when　it　is　firmly　established；

procure　a　hearing　for　it　by　giving　it　a　popular　character。　But　it　is

quite　absurd　to　try　to　be　popular　in　the　first　inquiry；　on　which　the

soundness　of　the　principles　depends。　It　is　not　only　that　this

proceeding　can　never　lay　claim　to　the　very　rare　merit　of　a　true

philosophical　popularity；　since　there　is　no　art　in　being

intelligible　if　one　renounces　all　thoroughness　of　insight；　but　also　it

produces　a　disgusting　medley　of　compiled　observations　and

half…reasoned　principles。　Shallow　pates　enjoy　this　because　it　can　be

used　for　every…day　chat；　but　the　sagacious　find　in　it　only

confusion；　and　being　unsatisfied　and　unable　to　help　themselves；　they

turn　away　their　eyes；　while　philosophers；　who　see　quite　well　through

this　delusion；　are　little　listened　to　when　they　call　men　off　for　a

time　from　this　pretended　popularity；　in　order　that　they　might　be

rightfully　popular　after　they　have　attained　a　definite　insight。

　　We　need　only　look　at　the　attempts　of　moralists　in　that　favourite

fashion；　and　we　shall　find　at　one　time　the　special　constitution　of

human　nature　（including；　however；　the　idea　of　a　rational　nature

generally）；　at　one　time　perfection；　at　another　happiness；　here　moral

sense；　there　fear　of　God。　a　little　of　this；　and　a　little　of　that；　in

marvellous　mixture；　without　its　occurring　to　them　to　ask　whether　the

principles　of　morality　are　to　be　sought　in　the　knowledge　of　human

nature　at　all　（which　we　can　have　only　from　experience）；　or；　if　this　is

not　so；　if　these　principles　are　to　be　found　altogether　a　priori；

free　from　everything　empirical；　in　pure　rational　concepts　only　and

nowhere　else；　not　even　in　the　smallest　degree；　then　rather　to　adopt

the　method　of　making　this　a　separate　inquiry；　as　pure　practical

philosophy；　or　（if　one　may　use　a　name　so　decried）　as　metaphysic　of

morals；*　to　bring　it　by　itself　to　completeness；　and　to　require　the

public；　which　wishes　for　popular　treatment；　to　await　the　issue　of　this

undertaking。



　　*Just　as　pure　mathematics　are　distinguished　from　applied；　pure　logic

from　applied；　so　if　we　choose　we　may　also　distinguish　pure

philosophy　of　morals　（metaphysic）　from　applied　（viz。；　applied　to　human

nature）。　By　this　designation　we　are　also　at　once　reminded　that　moral

principles　are　not　based　on　properties　of　human　nature；　but　must

subsist　a　priori　of　themselves；　while　from　such　principles　practical

rules　must　be　capable　of　being　deduced　for　every　rational　nature；

and　accordingly　for　that　of　man。



　　Such　a　metaphysic　of　morals；　completely　isolated；　not　mixed　with　any

anthropology；　theology；　physics；　or　hyperphysics；　and　still　less

with　occult　qualities　（which　we　might　call　hypophysical）；　is　not

only　an　indispensable　substratum　of　all　sound　theoretical　knowledge　of

duties；　but　is　at　the　same　time　a　desideratum　of　the　highest

importance　to　the　actual　fulfilment　of　their　precepts。　For　the　pure

conception　of　duty；　unmixed　with　any　foreign　addition　of　empirical

attractions；　and；　in　a　word；　the　conception　of　th