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！
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE METAPHYSIC OF MORALS
by Immanuel Kant
translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott
PREFACE
Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into three sciences： physics；
ethics； and logic。 This division is perfectly suitable to the nature
of the thing； and the only improvement that can be made in it is to
add the principle on which it is based； so that we may both satisfy
ourselves of its completeness； and also be able to determine correctly
the necessary subdivisions。
All rational knowledge is either material or formal： the former
considers some object； the latter is concerned only with the form of
the understanding and of the reason itself； and with the universal
laws of thought in general without distinction of its objects。
Formal philosophy is called logic。 Material philosophy； however； has
to do with determinate objects and the laws to which they are subject；
is again twofold； for these laws are either laws of nature or of
freedom。 The science of the former is physics； that of the latter；
ethics； they are also called natural philosophy and moral philosophy
respectively。
Logic cannot have any empirical part； that is； a part in which the
universal and necessary laws of thought should rest on grounds taken
from experience； otherwise it would not be logic； i。e。； a canon for
the understanding or the reason； valid for all thought； and capable of
demonstration。 Natural and moral philosophy； on the contrary； can each
have their empirical part； since the former has to determine the
laws of nature as an object of experience； the latter the laws of
the human will； so far as it is affected by nature： the former；
however； being laws according to which everything does happen； the
latter； laws according to which everything ought to happen。 Ethics；
however； must also consider the conditions under which what ought to
happen frequently does not。
We may call all philosophy empirical； so far as it is based on
grounds of experience： on the other band； that which delivers its
doctrines from a priori principles alone we may call pure
philosophy。 When the latter is merely formal it is logic； if it is
restricted to definite objects of the understanding it is metaphysic。
In this way there arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic… a
metaphysic of nature and a metaphysic of morals。 Physics will thus
have an empirical and also a rational part。 It is the same with
Ethics； but here the empirical part might have the special name of
practical anthropology； the name morality being appropriated to the
rational part。
All trades； arts； and handiworks have gained by division of
labour； namely； when； instead of one man doing everything； each
confines himself to a certain kind of work distinct from others in the
treatment it requires； so as to be able to perform it with greater
facility and in the greatest perfection。 Where the different kinds
of work are not distinguished and divided； where everyone is a
jack…of…all…trades； there manufactures remain still in the greatest
barbarism。 It might deserve to be considered whether pure philosophy
in all its parts does not require a man specially devoted to it； and
whether it would not be better for the whole business of science if
those who； to please the tastes of the public； are wont to blend the
rational and empirical elements together； mixed in all sorts of
proportions unknown to themselves； and who call themselves independent
thinkers； giving the name of minute philosophers to those who apply
themselves to the rational part only… if these； I say； were warned not
to carry on two employments together which differ widely in the
treatment they demand； for each of which perhaps a special talent is
required； and the combination of which in one person only produces
bunglers。 But I only ask here whether the nature of science does not
require that we should always carefully separate the empirical from
the rational part； and prefix to Physics proper （or empirical physics）
a metaphysic of nature； and to practical anthropology a metaphysic
of morals； which must be carefully cleared of everything empirical； so
that we may know how much can be accomplished by pure reason in both
cases； and from what sources it draws this its a priori teaching；
and that whether the latter inquiry is conducted by all moralists
（whose name is legion）； or only by some who feel a calling thereto。
As my concern here is with moral philosophy； I limit the question
suggested to this： Whether it is not of the utmost necessity to
construct a pure thing which is only empirical and which belongs to
anthropology？ for that such a philosophy must be possible is evident
from the common idea of duty and of the moral laws。 Everyone must
admit that if a law is to have moral force； i。e。； to be the basis of
an obligation； it must carry with it absolute necessity； that； for
example； the precept； 〃Thou shalt not lie；〃 is not valid for men
alone； as if other rational beings had no need to observe it； and so
with all the other moral laws properly so called； that； therefore； the
basis of obligation must not be sought in the nature of man； or in the
circumstances in the world in which he is placed； but a priori
simply in the conception of pure reason； and although any other
precept which is founded on principles of mere experience may be in
certain respects universal； yet in as far as it rests even in the
least degree on an empirical basis； perhaps only as to a motive；
such a precept； while it may be a practical rule； can never be
called a moral law。
Thus not only are moral laws with their principles essentially
distinguished from every other kind of practical knowledge in which
there is anything empirical； but all moral philosophy rests wholly
on its pure part。 When applied to man； it does not borrow the least
thing from the knowledge of man himself （anthropology）； but gives laws
a priori to him as a rational being。 No doubt these laws require a
judgement sharpened by experience； in order on the one hand to
distinguish in what cases they are applicable； and on the other to
procure for them access to the will of the man and effectual influence
on conduct； since man is acted on by so many inclinations that； though
capable of the idea of a practical pure reason； he is not so easily
able to make it effective in concreto in his life。
A metaphysic of morals is therefore indispensably necessary； not
merely for speculative reasons； in order to investigate the sources of
the practical principles which are to be found a priori in our reason；
but also because morals themselves are liable to all sorts of
corruption； as long as we are without that clue and supreme canon by
which to estimate them correctly。 For in order that an action should
be morally good； it is not enough that it conform to the moral law；
but it must also be done for the sake of the law； otherwise that
conformity is only very contingent and uncertain； since a principle
which is not moral； although it may now and then produce actions
conformable to the law； will also often produce actions which
contradict it。 Now it is only a pure philosophy that we can look for
the moral law in its purity and genuineness （and； in a practical
matter； this is of the utmost consequence）： we must； therefore；
begin with pure philosophy （metaphysic）； and without it there cannot
be any moral philosophy at all。 That which mingles these pure
principles with the empirical does not deserve the name of
philosophy （for what distinguishes philosophy from common rational
knowledge is that it treats in separate sciences what the latter
only comprehends confusedly）； much less does it deserve that of
moral philosophy； since by this confusion it even spoils the purity of
morals themselves； and counteracts its own end。
Let it not be thought； however； that what is here demanded is
already extant in the propaedeutic prefixed by the celebrated Wolf
to his moral philosophy； namely； his so…called general practical
philosophy； and that； therefore； we have not to strike into an
entirely new field。 just because it was to be a general practical
philosophy； it has not taken into consideration a will of any
particular kind… say one which should be determined solely from a
priori principles without any empirical motives； and which we might
call a pure will； but volition in general； with all the actions and
conditions which belong to it in this general signification。 By this
it is distinguished from a metaphysic of morals； just as general
logic； which treats of the acts and canons of thought in general； is
distinguished from transcendental philosophy； which treats of the
particular acts and canons of pure thought； i。e。； that whose
cognitions are altogether a priori。 For the metaphysic of morals has
to examine the idea and the pri