Kant regarded the moral order as a kingdom of ends, fundamentally transcending the naturalistic, utilitarian, or emotive moral philosophies he faced, and giving moral form a supreme and absolute status.
What do I call the Kingdom of Destination in such a purpose?
In fact, it is a further expansion of our "human is the purpose" thinking. In the kingdom of purpose, each of us feels that we are legislating for ourselves, rather than obeying anything else designated for us, including God or anything else outside of ourselves, to legislate for us. Everyone feels that they are legislating for themselves, and such legislation involves an important characteristic of others, which is that we respect others as a purpose and carry out universal legislation in this way.
So, legislation is a rule, not a guideline, not just something we have established in this way, not only effective for us, but naturally effective for everyone. Because I am legislating others as an end in itself, in a universal sense.
Since that's the case, I see myself as the goal and others as the goal. Based on this, I legislate, and at the same time, others will also obey such legislation. Why?
On the contrary, he is also considering himself as the purpose and me as the purpose. I am someone else to him, and he will also consider himself and me as someone else to him. Legislating based on this foundation as the purpose is also a universal rule.
So, this kind of legislation, from one perspective, is me legislating, but from another perspective, it is me legislating for myself and others, and he legislating for himself and for me, completely equivalent.
However, such a legislative premise, of course, is a universal law that has an absolute binding force on all of us. After such legislation, he can become a universal command. This is one. Moral order is a kingdom of purpose.
Secondly, moral order is an ideal, which is often overlooked by ordinary people when studying Kant's moral philosophy.
Kant particularly emphasized that moral order is an ideal, a public established order, not a natural and divine order. It is an interactive relationship that involves each person legislating for themselves and others. Here, the legislative relationship for oneself and others is referred to as' I legislate for myself 'and' I legislate for others'. Similarly, for any other person, he is also legislating for himself and for me. Such an interactive relationship.
Kant made it very clear, just in principle. It's not that in practical experience, I legislated for me and you legislated for me. Then, the two of us will compare and see if the legislation is consistent or not.
Kant's transcendental philosophy is entirely derived from principles. What are principles?
Human beings are the purpose, and the purpose of life includes considering oneself as the purpose as well as others as the purpose. Therefore, when I legislate, I cannot harm my neighbors. I have enacted a law that benefits me, and then use others as a means. Based on this, legislation is at best a guideline, not a rule, because others cannot abide by it. And this kind of thinking about oneself as the goal and others as the goal is interaction. I think of you as the goal, and you think of me as the goal. Of course, at the same time, we also think of ourselves as the goal. It is a principle deduction that establishes a moral order.
He is an ideal moral order, a public established moral order, or we establish a public order between subjects using a concept that emerged after Kant. This kind of public order is no longer a natural organization, just like the moral philosophy problem of causal naturalism. Unlike moral philosophy, which is based on experiential human nature, the moral order established is also different from the medieval Christian or Jewish Christian traditions. Where did the moral order come from?
That is prescribed by God, built by God, not. It is an interactive relationship that involves each person legislating for themselves and others. It is this kind of person who legislates for themselves and also legislates for others, creating rules that he will not detach from all others and all actors in the moral community.
Kant said in "Foundations of Moral Metaphysics" that "morality exists in the relationship between all actions and legislation".
The legislation here certainly refers to a moral subject who legislates for both themselves and others. Only through this relationship can a goal kingdom be possible. On what basis is the possibility of a destination kingdom established?
Built on the interactive relationship where people both legislate for themselves and others, the interactive relationship means that I will legislate for myself and others, and you will legislate for yourself and me. Only in the interactive relationship can the kingdom of purpose be possible. Why?
Because at this point, it's not just about being selfish and self-centered. I see others as ends and means, but rather, this legislation is based on treating each other as ends, giving others as ends, and in one sentence, treating everyone including myself as ends. So, what is moral order?
Moral order is the necessary order for people to live and act together, but why did Kant call it the Kingdom of Purpose?
It's simple, because in it, every agent and every actor is a goal. Not only does he see himself as the goal, but he also sees others as the goal. All the people in it see themselves as the goal and others as the goal. Of course, if there is a moral order composed of purposeful actors, what is not the kingdom of purpose?
So, it is the most touching and sublime aspect of Kant's moral philosophy. I immediately distanced myself from anyone who views morality as practical, utilitarian, and self interested, and completely distanced myself from them. He proposed that this is a kingdom of purpose, the establishment of moral order, not for us to pursue personal interests, but for the fundamental purpose of ensuring that we consider ourselves as the purpose and others as the purpose.
So, we should appreciate it well, which is why Kant's moral philosophy has always been able to move many, many people, including young people in the 21st century. Sometimes when we come into contact with his moral philosophy, we find it difficult to describe such a sublime. Because we see too much emphasis on morality now, which seems very calm and realistic. To tell you, morality is a game rule of our kind, a game rule of living together. Without game rules, the game cannot be played. This is a very practical and utilitarian approach, based on the hidden premise of pursuing personal interests. In today's world, it seems to have become a mainstream understanding of morality. And precisely at this point, Kant identified one of his fundamental principles.
Kant's moral philosophy has two basic principles. One is the principle of universality, which means that as long as it is a moral principle or a moral law, it must be "not for the existence of Yao, not for the destruction of Jie", without exception, and is the same for everyone.
The second principle is to respect the inherent dignity of all individuals. It's about treating people as the goal.
These two principles allow Kant to further state what we need to do morally? What should we do specifically? All of his moral considerations regarding what we should and should not do are based on these two foundations.
This is where Kant's moral philosophy differs from many other moral philosophies. Therefore, correspondingly, Kant divided the moral world into two domains, and what we use more broadly is that practical events are divided into two domains: one is the realm of legal rights, and the other is the realm of virtue.
The moral world consists of these two domains, and the legal domain is something that is unconditionally demanded of us politically and socially. In the field, regardless of our personal thoughts, you must do what is unconditionally required of us politically and socially.
Politically, one cannot betray the motherland or collude with the enemy. In society, a person must abide by the basic social order, respect the law, and abide by the law, which is what politics and society unconditionally require us to do. He doesn't ask whether we are willing to do it or unwilling to be forced to do it, it doesn't matter if you just need to do it, this is a field.
We can say it is the external realm of morality. There is also a realm of virtue, which is different. The realm is composed of the moral obligations of each of us, which is different from the above. The realm also has obligations, but the obligations are external and have legal provisions. As citizens and members of society, our obligations are what we should and cannot do. In the field, many things are not prohibited by law. However, there are also obligations in the field, which are composed of personal moral obligations. However, those obligations cannot become any kind of obligations that can be forced by law. Take the example familiar to us Chinese people, it is filial piety. The moral law does not say that I will punish you if you are not filial, or I will punish you in the future.
However, many morally conscious people see it as an obligation, where does obligation come from?
Obligation comes from my own inner conscience, or rather my conscience, or Kant's concept of virtue. As humans, we are virtuous individuals, and their virtue inevitably requires them to do so. These two are clearly different, and they are an external domain where they use external means to demand that you fulfill your obligations. And in the second field, the realm of virtue, there are no external means to endure, nor are there external forces. It's just that it's very out of your moral consciousness, appealing to your moral conscience. If you are a virtuous person, you will naturally do so. If your virtue is not good, then of course we won't talk about it.
网友评论