fundamental principles of the metaphysic of morals-第4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！



served；　but　this　is　not　enough　to　make　us　believe　that　the　tradesman

has　so　acted　from　duty　and　from　principles　of　honesty：　his　own

advantage　required　it；　it　is　out　of　the　question　in　this　case　to

suppose　that　he　might　besides　have　a　direct　inclination　in　favour　of

the　buyers；　so　that；　as　it　were；　from　love　he　should　give　no　advantage

to　one　over　another。　Accordingly　the　action　was　done　neither　from　duty

nor　from　direct　inclination；　but　merely　with　a　selfish　view。

　　On　the　other　hand；　it　is　a　duty　to　maintain　one's　life；　and；　in

addition；　everyone　has　also　a　direct　inclination　to　do　so。　But　on　this

account　the　of　anxious　care　which　most　men　take　for　it　has　no

intrinsic　worth；　and　their　maxim　has　no　moral　import。　They　preserve

their　life　as　duty　requires；　no　doubt；　but　not　because　duty

requires。　On　the　other　band；　if　adversity　and　hopeless　sorrow　have

completely　taken　away　the　relish　for　life；　if　the　unfortunate　one；

strong　in　mind；　indignant　at　his　fate　rather　than　desponding　or

dejected；　wishes　for　death；　and　yet　preserves　his　life　without

loving　it…　not　from　inclination　or　fear；　but　from　duty…　then　his　maxim

has　a　moral　worth。

　　To　be　beneficent　when　we　can　is　a　duty；　and　besides　this；　there

are　many　minds　so　sympathetically　constituted　that；　without　any

other　motive　of　vanity　or　self…interest；　they　find　a　pleasure　in

spreading　joy　around　them　and　can　take　delight　in　the　satisfaction

of　others　so　far　as　it　is　their　own　work。　But　I　maintain　that　in

such　a　case　an　action　of　this　kind；　however　proper；　however　amiable　it

may　be；　bas　nevertheless　no　true　moral　worth；　but　is　on　a　level　with

other　inclinations；　e。g。；　the　inclination　to　honour；　which；　if　it　is

happily　directed　to　that　which　is　in　fact　of　public　utility　and

accordant　with　duty　and　consequently　honourable；　deserves　praise　and

encouragement；　but　not　esteem。　For　the　maxim　lacks　the　moral　import；

namely；　that　such　actions　be　done　from　duty；　not　from　inclination。　Put

the　case　that　the　mind　of　that　philanthropist　were　clouded　by　sorrow

of　his　own；　extinguishing　all　sympathy　with　the　lot　of　others；　and

that；　while　he　still　has　the　power　to　benefit　others　in　distress；　he

is　not　touched　by　their　trouble　because　he　is　absorbed　with　his　own；

and　now　suppose　that　he　tears　himself　out　of　this　dead

insensibility；　and　performs　the　action　without　any　inclination　to

it；　but　simply　from　duty；　then　first　has　his　action　its　genuine

moral　worth。　Further　still；　if　nature　bas　put　little　sympathy　in　the

heart　of　this　or　that　man；　if　he；　supposed　to　be　an　upright　man；　is　by

temperament　cold　and　indifferent　to　the　sufferings　of　others；

perhaps　because　in　respect　of　his　own　he　is　provided　with　the

special　gift　of　patience　and　fortitude　and　supposes；　or　even　requires；

that　others　should　have　the　same…　and　such　a　man　would　certainly　not

be　the　meanest　product　of　nature…　but　if　nature　had　not　specially

framed　him　for　a　philanthropist；　would　he　not　still　find　in　himself

a　source　from　whence　to　give　himself　a　far　higher　worth　than　that　of　a

good…natured　temperament　could　be？　Unquestionably。　It　is　just　in

this　that　the　moral　worth　of　the　character　is　brought　out　which　is

incomparably　the　highest　of　all；　namely；　that　he　is　beneficent；　not

from　inclination；　but　from　duty。

　　To　secure　one's　own　happiness　is　a　duty；　at　least　indirectly；　for

discontent　with　one's　condition；　under　a　pressure　of　many　anxieties

and　amidst　unsatisfied　wants；　might　easily　become　a　great　temptation

to　transgression　of　duty。　But　here　again；　without　looking　to　duty；　all

men　have　already　the　strongest　and　most　intimate　inclination　to

happiness；　because　it　is　just　in　this　idea　that　all　inclinations　are

combined　in　one　total。　But　the　precept　of　happiness　is　often　of　such　a

sort　that　it　greatly　interferes　with　some　inclinations；　and　yet　a

man　cannot　form　any　definite　and　certain　conception　of　the　sum　of

satisfaction　of　all　of　them　which　is　called　happiness。　It　is　not

then　to　be　wondered　at　that　a　single　inclination；　definite　both　as

to　what　it　promises　and　as　to　the　time　within　which　it　can　be

gratified；　is　often　able　to　overcome　such　a　fluctuating　idea；　and　that

a　gouty　patient；　for　instance；　can　choose　to　enjoy　what　he　likes；

and　to　suffer　what　he　may；　since；　according　to　his　calculation；　on

this　occasion　at　least；　be　has　not　sacrificed　the　enjoyment　of　the

present　moment　to　a　possibly　mistaken　expectation　of　a　happiness　which

is　supposed　to　be　found　in　health。　But　even　in　this　case；　if　the

general　desire　for　happiness　did　not　influence　his　will；　and　supposing

that　in　his　particular　case　health　was　not　a　necessary　element　in　this

calculation；　there　yet　remains　in　this；　as　in　all　other　cases；　this

law；　namely；　that　he　should　promote　his　happiness　not　from　inclination

but　from　duty；　and　by　this　would　his　conduct　first　acquire　true

moral　worth。

　　It　is　in　this　manner；　undoubtedly；　that　we　are　to　understand　those

passages　of　Scripture　also　in　which　we　are　commanded　to　love　our

neighbour；　even　our　enemy。　For　love；　as　an　affection；　cannot　be

commanded；　but　beneficence　for　duty's　sake　may；　even　though　we　are　not

impelled　to　it　by　any　inclination…　nay；　are　even　repelled　by　a　natural

and　unconquerable　aversion。　This　is　practical　love　and　not

pathological…　a　love　which　is　seated　in　the　will；　and　not　in　the

propensions　of　sense…　in　principles　of　action　and　not　of　tender

sympathy；　and　it　is　this　love　alone　which　can　be　commanded。

　　The　second　proposition　is：　That　an　action　done　from　duty　derives　its

moral　worth；　not　from　the　purpose　which　is　to　be　attained　by　it；　but

from　the　maxim　by　which　it　is　determined；　and　therefore　does　not

depend　on　the　realization　of　the　object　of　the　action；　but　merely　on

the　principle　of　volition　by　which　the　action　has　taken　place；　without

regard　to　any　object　of　desire。　It　is　clear　from　what　precedes　that

the　purposes　which　we　may　have　in　view　in　our　actions；　or　their

effects　regarded　as　ends　and　springs　of　the　will；　cannot　give　to

actions　any　unconditional　or　moral　worth。　In　what；　then；　can　their

worth　lie；　if　it　is　not　to　consist　in　the　will　and　in　reference　to　its

expected　effect？　It　cannot　lie　anywhere　but　in　the　principle　of　the

will　without　regard　to　the　ends　which　can　be　attained　by　the　action。

For　the　will　stands　between　its　a　priori　principle；　which　is　formal；

and　its　a　posteriori　spring；　which　is　material；　as　between　two

roads；　and　as　it　must　be　determined　by　something；　it　that　it　must　be

determined　by　the　formal　principle　of　volition　when　an　action　is

done　from　duty；　in　which　case　every　material　principle　has　been

withdrawn　from　it。

　　The　third　proposition；　which　is　a　consequence　of　the　two

preceding；　I　would　express　thus　Duty　is　the　necessity　of　acting　from

respect　for　the　law。　I　may　have　inclination　for　an　object　as　the

effect　of　my　proposed　action；　but　I　cannot　have　respect　for　it；　just

for　this　reason；　that　it　is　an　effect　and　not　an　energy　of　will。

Similarly　I　cannot　have　respect　for　inclination；　whether　my　own　or

another's；　I　can　at　most；　if　my　own；　approve　it；　if　another's；

sometimes　even　love　it；　i。e。；　look　on　it　as　favourable　to　my　own

interest。　It　is　only　what　is　connected　with　my　will　as　a　principle；　by

no　means　as　an　effect…　what　does　not　subserve　my　inclination；　but

overpowers　it；　or　at　least　in　case　of　choice　excludes　it　from　its

calculation…　in　other　words；　simply　the　law　of　itself；　which　can　be　an

object　of　respect；　and　hence　a　command。　Now　an　action　done　from　duty

must　wholly　exclude　the　influence　of　inclination　and　with　it　every

object　of　the　will；　so　that　nothing　remains　which　can　determine　the

will　except　objectively　the　law；　and　subjectively　pure　respect　for

this　practical　law；　and　consequently　the　maxim*　that　I　should　follow

this　law　even　to　the　thwarting　of　all　my　inclinations。



　　*A　maxim　is　the　subjective　principle　of　volition。　The　objective

principle　（i。e。；　that　which　would　also　serve　subjectively　as　a

practical　principle　t