introduction to the metaphysic of morals-第2部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！





　　The　pleasure　which　is　necessarily　connected　with　the　activity　of

desire；　when　the　representation　of　the　object　desired　affects　the

capacity　of　feeling；　may　be　called　practical　pleasure。　And　this

designation　is　applicable　whether　the　pleasure　is　the　cause　or　the

effect　of　the　desire。　On　the　other　hand；　that　pleasure　which　is　not

necessarily　connected　with　the　desire　of　an　object；　and　which；

therefore；　is　not　a　pleasure　in　the　existence　of　the　object；　but　is

merely　attached　to　a　mental　representation　alone；　may　be　called

inactive　complacency；　or　mere　contemplative　pleasure。　The　feeling　of

this　latter　kind　of　pleasure　is　what　is　called　taste。　Hence；　in　a

system　of　practical　philosophy；　the　contemplative　pleasure　of　taste

will　not　be　discussed　as　an　essential　constituent　conception；　but　need

only　be　referred　to　incidentally　or　episodically。　But　as　regards

practical　pleasure；　it　is　otherwise。　For　the　determination　of　the

activity　of　the　faculty　of　desire　or　appetency；　which　is　necessarily

preceded　by　this　pleasure　as　its　cause；　is　what　properly　constitutes

desire　in　the　strict　sense　of　the　term。　Habitual　desire；　again；

constitutes　inclination；　and　the　connection　of　pleasure　with　the

activity　of　desire；　in　so　far　as　this　connection　is　judged　by　the

understanding　to　be　valid　according　to　a　general　rule　holding　good

at　least　for　the　individual；　is　what　is　called　interest。　Hence；　in

such　a　case；　the　practical　pleasure　is　an　interest　of　the

inclination　of　the　individual。　On　the　other　hand；　if　the　pleasure

can　only　follow　a　preceding　determination　of　the　faculty　of　desire；　it

is　an　intellectual　pleasure；　and　the　interest　in　the　object　must　be

called　a　rational　interest；　for　were　the　interest　sensuous；　and　not

based　only　upon　pure　principles　of　reason；　sensation　would　necessarily

be　conjoined　with　the　pleasure；　and　would　thus　determine　the

activity　of　the　desire。　Where　an　entirely　pure　interest　of　reason　must

be　assumed；　it　is　not　legitimate　to　introduce　into　it　an　interest　of

inclination　surreptitiously。　However；　in　order　to　conform　so　far

with　the　common　phraseology；　we　may　allow　the　application　of　the

term　〃inclination〃　even　to　that　which　can　only　be　the　object　of　an

〃intellectual〃　pleasure　in　the　sense　of　a　habitual　desire　arising　from

a　pure　interest　of　reason。　But　such　inclination　would　have　to　be

viewed；　not　as　the　cause；　but　as　the　effect　of　the　rational

interest；　and　we　might　call　it　the　non…sensuous　or　rational

inclination　（propensio　intellectualis）。　Further；　concupiscence　is　to

be　distinguished　from　the　activity　of　desire　itself；　as　a　stimulus

or　incitement　to　its　determination。　It　is　always　a　sensuous　state　of

the　mind；　which　does　not　itself　attain　to　the　definiteness　of　an　act

of　the　power　of　desire。

　　The　activity　of　the　faculty　of　desire　may　proceed　in　accordance　with

conceptions；　and　in　so　far　as　the　principle　thus　determining　it　to

action　is　found　in　the　mind；　and　not　in　its　object　it　constitutes　a

power　acting　or　not　acting　according　to　liking。　In　so　far　as　the

activity　is　accompanied　with　the　consciousness　of　the　power　of　the

action　to　produce　the　object；　it　forms　an　act　of　choice；　if　this

consciousness　is　not　conjoined　with　it；　the　activity　is　called　a　wish。

The　faculty　of　desire；　in　so　far　as　its　inner　principle　of

determination　as　the　ground　of　its　liking　or　predilection　lies　in

the　reason　of　the　subject；　constitutes　the　will。　The　will　is　therefore

the　faculty　of　active　desire　or　appetency；　viewed　not　so　much　in

relation　to　the　action…　which　is　the　relation　of　the　act　of　choice…　as

rather　in　relation　to　the　principle　that　determines　the　power　of

choice　to　the　action。　It　has；　in　itself；　properly　no　special　principle

of　determination；　but　in　so　far　as　it　may　determine　the　voluntary

act　of　choice；　it　is　the　practical　reason　itself。

　　Under　the　will；　taken　generally；　may　be　included　the　volitional

act　of　choice；　and　also　the　mere　act　of　wish；　in　so　far　as　reason

may　determine　the　faculty　of　desire　in　its　activity。　The　act　of　choice

that　can　be　determined　by　pure　reason　constitutes　the　act　of

free…will。　That　act　which　is　determinable　only　by　inclination　as　a

sensuous　impulse　or　stimulus　would　be　irrational　brute　choice

（arbitrium　brutum）。　The　human　act　of　choice；　however；　as　human；　is

in　fact　affected　by　such　impulses　or　stimuli；　but　is　not　determined　by

them；　and　it　is；　therefore；　not　pure　in　itself　when　taken　apart　from

the　acquired　habit　of　determination　by　reason。　But　it　may　be

determined　to　action　by　the　pure　will。　The　freedom　of　the　act　of

volitional　choice　is　its　independence　of　being　determined　by

sensuous　impulses　or　stimuli。　This　forms　the　negative　conception　of

the　free…will。　The　positive　conception　of　freedom　is　given　by　the　fact

that　the　will　is　the　capability　of　pure　reason　to　be　practical　of

itself。　But　this　is　not　possible　otherwise　than　by　the　maxim　of

every　action　being　subjected　to　the　condition　of　being　practicable

as　a　universal　law。　Applied　as　pure　reason　to　the　act　of　choice；　and

considered　apart　from　its　objects；　it　may　be　regarded　as　the　faculty

of　principles；　and；　in　this　connection；　it　is　the　source　of

practical　principles。　Hence　it　is　to　be　viewed　as　a　law…giving

faculty。　But　as　the　material　upon　which　to　construct　a　law　is　not

furnished　to　it；　it　can　only　make　the　form　of　the　form　of　the　maxim　of

the　act　of　will；　in　so　far　as　it　is　available　as　a　universal　law；

the　supreme　law　and　determining　principle　of　the　will。　And　as　the

maxims；　or　rules　of　human　action　derived　from　subjective　causes；　do

not　of　themselves　necessarily　agree　with　those　that　are　objective

and　universal；　reason　can　only　prescribe　this　supreme　law　as　an

absolute　imperative　of　prohibition　or　command。

　　The　laws　of　freedom；　as　distinguished　from　the　laws　of　nature；　are

moral　laws。　So　far　as　they　refer　only　to　external　actions　and　their

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