the critique of pure reason-第154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！





　　The　first　question　is　purely　speculative。　We　have；　as　I　flatter

myself；　exhausted　all　the　replies　of　which　it　is　susceptible；　and　have

at　last　found　the　reply　with　which　reason　must　content　itself；　and

with　which　it　ought　to　be　content；　so　long　as　it　pays　no　regard　to　the

practical。　But　from　the　two　great　ends　to　the　attainment　of　which

all　these　efforts　of　pure　reason　were　in　fact　directed；　we　remain　just

as　far　removed　as　if　we　had　consulted　our　ease　and　declined　the　task

at　the　outset。　So　far；　then；　as　knowledge　is　concerned；　thus　much；

at　least；　is　established；　that；　in　regard　to　those　two　problems；　it

lies　beyond　our　reach。

　　The　second　question　is　purely　practical。　As　such　it　may　indeed

fall　within　the　province　of　pure　reason；　but　still　it　is　not

transcendental；　but　moral；　and　consequently　cannot　in　itself　form

the　subject　of　our　criticism。

　　The　third　question：　If　I　act　as　I　ought　to　do；　what　may　I　then

hope？…　is　at　once　practical　and　theoretical。　The　practical　forms　a

clue　to　the　answer　of　the　theoretical；　and…　in　its　highest　form…

speculative　question。　For　all　hoping　has　happiness　for　its　object

and　stands　in　precisely　the　same　relation　to　the　practical　and　the　law

of　morality　as　knowing　to　the　theoretical　cognition　of　things　and

the　law　of　nature。　The　former　arrives　finally　at　the　conclusion　that

something　is　（which　determines　the　ultimate　end）；　because　something

ought　to　take　place；　the　latter；　that　something　is　（which　operates

as　the　highest　cause）；　because　something　does　take　place。

　　Happiness　is　the　satisfaction　of　all　our　desires；　extensive；　in

regard　to　their　multiplicity；　intensive；　in　regard　to　their　degree；

and　protensive；　in　regard　to　their　duration。　The　practical　law　based

on　the　motive　of　happiness　I　term　a　pragmatical　law　（or　prudential

rule）；　but　that　law；　assuming　such　to　exist；　which　has　no　other　motive

than　the　worthiness　of　being　happy；　I　term　a　moral　or　ethical　law。　The

first　tells　us　what　we　have　to　do；　if　we　wish　to　become　possessed　of

happiness；　the　second　dictates　how　we　ought　to　act；　in　order　to

deserve　happiness。　The　first　is　based　upon　empirical　principles；　for

it　is　only　by　experience　that　I　can　learn　either　what　inclinations

exist　which　desire　satisfaction；　or　what　are　the　natural　means　of

satisfying　them。　The　second　takes　no　account　of　our　desires　or　the

means　of　satisfying　them；　and　regards　only　the　freedom　of　a　rational

being；　and　the　necessary　conditions　under　which　alone　this　freedom　can

harmonize　with　the　distribution　of　happiness　according　to

principles。　This　second　law　may　therefore　rest　upon　mere　ideas　of　pure

reason；　and　may　be　cognized　a　priori。

　　I　assume　that　there　are　pure　moral　laws　which　determine；　entirely

a　priori　（without　regard　to　empirical　motives；　that　is；　to　happiness）；

the　conduct　of　a　rational　being；　or　in　other　words；　to　use　which　it

makes　of　its　freedom；　and　that　these　laws　are　absolutely　imperative

（not　merely　hypothetically；　on　the　supposition　of　other　empirical

ends）；　and　therefore　in　all　respects　necessary。　I　am　warranted　in

assuming　this；　not　only　by　the　arguments　of　the　most　enlightened

moralists；　but　by　the　moral　judgement　of　every　man　who　will　make　the

attempt　to　form　a　distinct　conception　of　such　a　law。

　　Pure　reason；　then；　contains；　not　indeed　in　its　speculative；　but　in

its　practical；　or；　more　strictly；　its　moral　use；　principles　of　the

possibility　of　experience；　of　such　actions；　namely；　as；　in

accordance　with　ethical　precepts；　might　be　met　with　in　the　history

of　man。　For　since　reason　commands　that　such　actions　should　take　place；

it　must　be　possible　for　them　to　take　place；　and　hence　a　particular

kind　of　systematic　unity…　the　moral…　must　be　possible。　We　have

found；　it　is　true；　that　the　systematic　unity　of　nature　could　not　be

established　according　to　speculative　principles　of　reason；　because；

while　reason　possesses　a　causal　power　in　relation　to　freedom；　it　has

none　in　relation　to　the　whole　sphere　of　nature；　and；　while　moral

principles　of　reason　can　produce　free　actions；　they　cannot　produce

natural　laws。　It　is；　then；　in　its　practical；　but　especially　in　its

moral　use；　that　the　principles　of　pure　reason　possess　objective

reality。

　　I　call　the　world　a　moral　world；　in　so　far　as　it　may　be　in　accordance

with　all　the　ethical　laws…　which；　by　virtue　of　the　freedom　of

reasonable　beings；　it　can　be；　and　according　to　the　necessary　laws　of

morality　it　ought　to　be。　But　this　world　must　be　conceived　only　as　an

intelligible　world；　inasmuch　as　abstraction　is　therein　made　of　all

conditions　（ends）；　and　even　of　all　impediments　to　morality　（the

weakness　or　pravity　of　human　nature）。　So　far；　then；　it　is　a　mere　idea…

though　still　a　practical　idea…　which　may　have；　and　ought　to　have；　an

influence　on　the　world　of　sense；　so　as　to　bring　it　as　far　as

possible　into　conformity　with　itself。　The　idea　of　a　moral　world　has；

therefore；　objective　reality；　not　as　referring　to　an　object　of

intelligible　intuition…　for　of　such　an　object　we　can　form　no

conception　whatever…　but　to　the　world　of　sense…　conceived；　however；　as

an　object　of　pure　reason　in　its　practical　use…　and　to　a　corpus

mysticum　of　rational　beings　in　it；　in　so　far　as　the　liberum

arbitrium　of　the　individual　is　placed；　under　and　by　virtue　of　moral

laws；　in　complete　systematic　unity　both　with　itself　and　with　the

freedom　of　all　others。

　　That　is　the　answer　to　the　first　of　the　two　questions　of　pure

reason　which　relate　to　its　practical　interest：　Do　that　which　will

render　thee　worthy　of　happiness。　The　second　question　is　this：　If　I

conduct　myself　so　as　not　to　be　unworthy　of　happiness；　may　I　hope

thereby　to　obtain　happiness？　In　order　to　arrive　at　the　solution　of

this　question；　we　must　inquire　whether　the　principles　of　pure

reason；　which　prescribe　a　priori　the　law；　necessarily　also　connect

this　hope　with　it。

　　I　say；　then；　that　just　as　the　moral　principles　are　necessary

according　to　reason　in　its　practical　use；　so　it　is　equally　necessary

according　to　reason　in　its　theoretical　use　to　assume　that　every　one

has　ground　to　hope　for　happiness　in　the　measure　in　which　he　has　made

himself　worthy　of　it　in　his　conduct；　and　that　therefore　the　system

of　morality　is　inseparably　（though　only　in　the　idea　of　pure　reason）

connected　with　that　of　happiness。

　　Now　in　an　intelligible；　that　is；　in　the　moral　world；　in　the

conception　of　which　we　make　abstraction　of　all　the　impediments　to

morality　（sensuous　desires）；　such　a　system　of　happiness；　connected

with　and　proportioned　to　morality；　may　be　conceived　as　necessary；

because　freedom　of　volition…　partly　incited；　and　partly　restrained

by　moral　laws…　would　be　itself　the　cause　of　general　happiness；　and

thus　rational　beings；　under　the　guidance　of　such　principles；　would

be　themselves　the　authors　both　of　their　own　enduring　welfare　and

that　of　others。　But　such　a　system　of　self…rewarding　morality　is　only

an　idea；　the　carrying　out　of　which　depends　upon　the　condition　that

every　one　acts　as　he　ought；　in　other　words；　that　all　actions　of

reasonable　beings　be　such　as　they　would　be　if　they　sprung　from　a

Supreme　Will；　comprehending　in；　or　under；　itself　all　particular　wills。

But　since　the　moral　law　is　binding　on　each　individual　in　the　use　of

his　freedom　of　volition；　even　if　others　should　not　act　in　conformity

with　this　law；　neither　the　nature　of　things；　nor　the　causality　of

actions　and　their　relation　to　morality；　determine　how　the　consequences

of　these　actions　will　be　related　to　happiness；　and　the　necessary

connection　of　the　hope　of　happiness　with　the　unceasing　endeavour　to

become　worthy　of　happiness；　cannot　be　cognized　by　reason；　if　we　take

nature　alone　for　our　guide。　This　connection　can　be　hoped　for　only　on

the　assumption　that　the　cause　of　nature　is　a　supreme　reason；　which

governs　according　to　moral　laws。

　　I　term　the　idea　of　an　intelligence　in　which　the　morally　most　perfect

will；　united　with　supreme　blessedness；　is　the　cause　of　all　happiness

in　the　world；　so　far　as　happine