introduction to the metaphysic of morals-第3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！



lawfulness；　they　are　called　juridical；　but　if　they　also　require

that；　as　laws；　they　shall　themselves　be　the　determining　principles

of　our　actions；　they　are　ethical。　The　agreement　of　an　action　with

juridical　laws　is　its　legality；　the　agreement　of　an　action　with

ethical　laws　is　its　morality。　The　freedom　to　which　the　former　laws

refer；　can　only　be　freedom　in　external　practice；　but　the　freedom　to

which　the　latter　laws　refer　is　freedom　in　the　internal　as　well　as

the　external　exercise　of　the　activity　of　the　will　in　so　far　as　it　is

determined　by　laws　of　reason。　So；　in　theoretical　philosophy；　it　is

said　that　only　the　objects　of　the　external　senses　are　in　space；　but

all　the　objects　both　of　internal　and　external　sense　are　in　time；

because　the　representations　of　both；　as　being　representations；　so

far　belong　all　to　the　internal　sense。　In　like　manner；　whether

freedom　is　viewed　in　reference　to　the　external　or　the　internal

action　of　the　will；　its　laws；　as　pure　practical　laws　of　reason　for　the

free　activity　of　the　will　generally；　must　at　the　same　time　be　inner

principles　for　its　determination；　although　they　may　not　always　be

considered　in　this　relation。





　　　　　II。　THE　IDEA　AND　NECESSITY　OF　A　METAPHYSIC　OF　MORALS。



　　It　has　been　shown　in　The　Metaphysical　Principles　of　the　Science　of

Nature　that　there　must　be　principles　a　priori　for　the　natural

science　that　has　to　deal　with　the　objects　of　the　external　senses。

And　it　was　further　shown　that　it　is　possible；　and　even　necessary；　to

formulate　a　system　of　these　principles　under　the　name　of　a

〃metaphysical　science　of　nature；〃　as　a　preliminary　to　experimental

physics　regarded　as　natural　science　applied　to　particular　objects　of

experience。　But　this　latter　science；　if　care　be　taken　to　keep　its

generalizations　free　from　error；　may　accept　many　propositions　as

universal　on　the　evidence　of　experience；　although　if　the　term

〃universal〃　be　taken　in　its　strict　sense；　these　would　necessarily　have

to　be　deduced　by　the　metaphysical　science　from　principles　a　priori。

Thus　Newton　accepted　the　principle　of　the　equality　of　action　and

reaction　as　established　by　experience；　and　yet　he　extended　it　as　a

universal　law　over　the　whole　of　material　nature。　The　chemists　go

even　farther；　grounding　their　most　general　laws　regarding　the

combination　and　decomposition　of　the　materials　of　bodies　wholly　upon

experience；　and　yet　they　trust　so　completely　to　the　universality　and

necessity　of　those　laws　that　they　have　no　anxiety　as　to　any　error

being　found　in　propositions　founded　upon　experiments　conducted　in

accordance　with　them。

　　But　it　is　otherwise　with　moral　laws。　These；　in　contradistinction

to　natural　laws；　are　only　valid　as　laws；　in　so　far　as　they　can　be

rationally　established　a　priori　and　comprehended　as　necessary。　In

fact；　conceptions　and　judgements　regarding　ourselves　and　our　conduct

have　no　moral　significance；　if　they　contain　only　what　may　be　learned

from　experience；　and　when　any　one　is；　so　to　speak；　misled　into

making　a　moral　principle　out　of　anything　derived　from　this　latter

source；　he　is　already　in　danger　of　falling　into　the　coarsest　and

most　fatal　errors。

　　If　the　philosophy　of　morals　were　nothing　more　than　a　theory　of

happiness　（eudaemonism）；　it　would　be　absurd　to　search　after　principles

a　priori　as　a　foundation　for　it。　For　however　plausible　it　may　sound　to

say　that　reason；　even　prior　to　experience；　can　comprehend　by　what

means　we　may　attain　to　a　lasting　enjoyment　of　the　real　pleasures　of

life；　yet　all　that　is　taught　on　this　subject　a　priori　is　either

tautological；　or　is　assumed　wholly　without　foundation。　It　is　only

experience　that　can　show　what　will　bring　us　enjoyment。　The　natural

impulses　directed　towards　nourishment；　the　sexual　instinct；　or　the

tendency　to　rest　and　motion；　as　well　as　the　higher　desires　of

honour；　the　acquisition　of　knowledge；　and　such　like；　as　developed　with

our　natural　capacities；　are　alone　capable　of　showing　in　what　those

enjoyments　are　to　be　found。　And；　further；　the　knowledge　thus

acquired　is　available　for　each　individual　merely　in　his　own　way；　and

it　is　only　thus　he　can　learn　the　means　by　which　be　has　to　seek　those

enjoyments。　All　specious　rationalizing　a　priori；　in　this　connection；

is　nothing　at　bottom　but　carrying　facts　of　experience　up　to

generalizations　by　induction　（secundum　principia　generalia　non

universalia）；　and　the　generality　thus　attained　is　still　so　limited

that　numberless　exceptions　must　be　allowed　to　every　individual　in

order　that　he　may　adapt　the　choice　of　his　mode　of　life　to　his　own

Particular　inclinations　and　his　capacity　for　pleasure。　And；　after　all；

the　individual　has　really　to　acquire　his　prudence　at　the　cost　of　his

own　suffering　or　that　of　his　neighbors　the　form

　　But　it　is　quite　otherwise　with　the　principles　of　morality。　They

lay　down　commands　for　every　one　without　regard　to　his　particular

inclinations；　and　merely　because　and　so　far　as　he　is　free；　and　has　a

practical　reason。　Instruction　in　the　laws　of　morality　is　not　drawn

from　observation　of　oneself　or　of　our　animal　nature；　nor　from

perception　of　the　course　of　the　world　in　regard　to　what　happens；　or

how　men　act。*　But　reason　commands　how　we　ought　to　act；　even　although

no　example　of　such　action　were　to　be　found；　nor　does　reason　give　any

regard　to　the　advantage　which　may　accrue　to　us　by　so　acting；　and　which

experience　could　alone　actually　show。　For；　although　reason　allows　us

to　seek　what　is　for　our　advantage　in　every　possible　way；　and　although；

founding　upon　the　evidence　of　experience；　it　may　further　promise

that　greater　advantages　will　probably　follow　on　the　average　from　the

observance　of　her　commands　than　from　their　transgression；　especially

if　prudence　guides　the　conduct；　yet　the　authority　of　her　precepts　as

commands　does　not　rest　on　such　considerations。　They　are　used　by　reason

only　as　counsels；　and　by　way　of　a　counterpoise　against　seductions　to

an　opposite　course；　when　adjusting　beforehand　the　equilibrium　of　a

partial　balance　in　the　sphere　of　practical　judgement；　in　order　thereby

to　secure　the　decision　of　this　judgement；　according　to　the　due

weight　of　the　a　priori　principles　of　a　pure　practical　reason。



　　*This　holds　notwithstanding　the　fact　that　the　term　morals；〃　in　Latin

mores；　and　in　German　sitten；　signifies　originally　only　manners　or　mode

of　life。



　　Metaphysics　designates　any　system　of　knowledge　a　priori　that

consists　of　pure　conceptions。　Accordingly；　a　practical　philosophy

not　having　nature；　but　the　freedom　of　the　will　for　its　object；　will

presuppose　and　require　a　metaphysic　of　morals。　It　is　even　a　duty　to

have　such　a　metaphysic；　and　every　man　does；　indeed；　possess　it　in

himself；　although　commonly　but　in　an　obscure　way。　For　how　could　any

one　believe　that　he　has　a　source　of　universal　law　in　himself；

without　principles　a　priori？　And　just　as　in　a　metaphysics　of　nature

there　must　be　principles　regulating　the　application　of　the　universal

supreme　principles　of　nature　to　objects　of　experience；　so　there　cannot

but　be　such　principles　in　the　metaphysic　of　morals；　and　we　will

often　have　to　deal　objectively　with　the　particular　nature　of　man　as

known　only　by　experience；　in　order　to　show　in　it　the　consequences　of

these　universal　moral　principles。　But　this　mode　of　dealing　with

these　principles　in　their　particular　applications　will　in　no　way

detract　from　their　rational　purity；　or　throw　doubt　on　their　a　priori

origin。　In　other　words；　this　amounts　to　saying　that　a　metaphysic　of

morals　cannot　be　founded　on　anthropology　as　the　empirical　science　of

man；　but　may　be　applied　to　it。

　　The　counterpart　of　a　metaphysic　of　morals；　and　the　other　member　of

the　division　of　practical　philosophy；　would　be　a　moral　anthropology；

as　the　empirical　science　of　the　moral　nature　of　man。　This　science

would　contain　only　the　subjective　conditions　that　hinder　or　favor

the　realization　in　practice　of　the　universal　moral　laws　in　human

nature；　with　the　means　of　propagating；　spreading；　and　strengthening

t