At this point, when we say that you did that, it did not demonstrate your free will, but only demonstrated your free choice. Why?
Because from the perspective of public order alone, we cannot delve into your soul. Why do you do this? Never hide your actual income, perform military service as required by the country, etc. Here you have the freedom to choose. If you choose to go, you will not hide any income at all. This is true, but it cannot be said that you have the will.
In two sentences, we don't know if you are looking at it from the perspective of self legislation, self action, or from a sense of responsibility or personal superiority. You can't tell. Public order, do not misunderstand. Public order does not mean that there is no ethical life at all. Of course, there is ethical life within public order, without damaging the public environment,
Keeping quiet in the library certainly has a moral aspect to it.
Don't misunderstand, what I just talked about seems to have a moral issue, but in Kant's view, this is just the harmony of free choice under public law, rather than the harmony of a public community organized by virtuous individuals. It can be said to be a harmony within an external community of individuals connected by law.
We should not make any noise or read books here, it is very harmonious. Our community is within it, but it only involves us for various external considerations. We should maintain order, not Kant's saying 'make no mistake, it is not a community of virtuous people, its kind of harmony.'.
That kind of harmony, I legislate for myself and I legislate for you. What I abide by is my legislation, and it is also your legislation. Kant first argues that a fundamental political and social system of freedom should be the foundation of the system. What is the foundation of freedom?
It is our ability to choose from various options.
Our ability to choose must obey the laws of moral public. It is a prerequisite for a free society, a free political and social system, or a society and political system based on freedom. People have freedom, freedom of choice, and the ability to make free choices, but here they must obey public laws. Kant pointed out that for every person who has the same freedom rights and individual freedom of choice, what kind of compulsory constraints can we have? It is not that they are not free, but that a political and social system based on freedom is necessary.
So, is it freedom for Hong Kong students to behave like this now?
There is no need to discuss it at all, it is not free at all, because what you are involved in now is that you occupy a public space, which is not something that anyone can occupy. It represents some elements of Hong Kong, and even 4/5 of the people do not have the right to occupy public space, because public space itself is an institutional construction.
What is required in public space is an external element. I admit that you have choices, the right to choose, and the ability to choose. But now it's about public order. I'm sorry, I have to give you some restrictions in such a field. It doesn't mean that you have the ability, or even deny your ability to choose freely, or deny your right to choose freely. These are two different things.
The misconception among students in Hong Kong is that as long as you send police and use coercive measures to drive them away, you are not acknowledging my right. These are two different things. I certainly acknowledge your right, otherwise don't limit it. The premise of restriction is that you have the ability to choose and the right to choose, but the problem is that this is now a public space, how can we ensure a harmonious community.
Of course, this is the harmony of the rule of law. I'm sorry, but I can only provide you with many legal or regulatory restrictions and provisions, which require the establishment of a free social and political system. It is precisely what a social system and political preparation based on freedom must do.
In Kant's view, we humans have an obligation.
For individuals, people may become worse, and Kant is an incurable optimist. He always emphasizes the class. As a human class, from the long river of history, human beings are progressive, and individuals may not necessarily progress, and personal degradation is possible. If Kant lived from 1933 to 1945, he would say that Gestapo is understandable, and people will certainly fall. Of course, he will change from Germans like Beethoven and Goethe to Germans like Hitler, but as an individual, there is no problem. However, as a human, he can be perfected.
So, from a moral principle perspective, we humans have an obligation to leave the state of nature and enter a state of rule of law, that is, the state. Therefore, private property is a necessary link in such progress, and it is also necessary for the state to ensure private property.
In a just public order, people have the right to pursue happiness based on their own concept of happiness, but it is still important to understand that you also have an obligation to respect others, and others also have rights. Also, others have the right to pursue their own happiness based on their own concept of happiness. In fact, the principle of "treating oneself as the goal while also considering the goals of others" should be extended.
However, the key to Kant's viewpoint is not public order, but the means to ensure private interests. If Kant did not detach himself from the British classical political philosopher, then his key is not to say that public order is a means of ensuring our private interests, or rather a tool.
It is Kant who surpasses the British here. The rule of law itself is the end, and of course he spoke very well. In Kant, Fichte, and Hegel, the state is not a tool in any sense, but to some extent, under the premise, we can also regard it as a tool, at least a tool to ensure peace.
Because the state is a tool to ensure that its citizens can live in peaceful conditions, but fundamentally, it is not a tool. In fact, Kant made it very clear here that the rule of law is not a tool, but the rule of law itself is an end in itself, because the rule of law permeates respect for people, not something to prevent them from doing.
So, of course, Hong Kong people should pursue their own interests and can 'cause trouble', but they should do so in a legal form and not occupy public space. They should send lawyers to represent their public opinion and negotiate with the government, or use the legal provision of freedom of association to remind the authorities, address their demands, or provide them with attention and solutions to their problems.
This is caused by two factors. If the authorities do not understand the voices of the people and do not pay attention to them, it will certainly anger the people and lead them to not comply with the laws formulated by the country, especially in the current situation. It cannot be blamed solely on one aspect. Ignoring it will not automatically disappear, it will only escalate. Excluding the manipulation of so-called hostile forces is only an external factor. Without them, the problems reflected by Hong Kong people will not automatically disappear.
It's not about playing a big game, it's not about the meaning, it's that Hong Kong people have already overstepped their designed principles of freedom, such as not encroaching on public space, which is a crime. As for their problems, they need to be defended and advocated through legal means, not by not supporting them in defending their own interests.
However, the problem now is that they believe that their previous legal means have not been picked up by anyone or have not received a reasonable response, so they need to upgrade their means. Of course, they are a group of people who grew up under the concept of the rule of law, and they understand the truth. The complexity of the problem lies in the disharmony between the two, how to solve it? Ultimately, there is a bargaining relationship between the people and the authorities. What should we do if we don't discuss or can't reach an agreement at the negotiation table?
In my personal opinion, it's time for the wealthy people in Hong Kong to donate some money or make some profit. They can't help but speak up and laugh at the wind and rain.
It's not about treating people as something to guard against, which is also something we have always overlooked when discussing Kant or Western modern political and moral philosophy. Therefore, it is generally believed that the modern morality of the West is political philosophy, seemingly entirely utilitarian. Actually, it's not like that. The rule of law itself is the goal, and it's our obligation as members of the destination kingdom to achieve it. In other words, as members of the destination kingdom, we have the obligation to abide by the law, rather than breaking the law or breaking the law.
The place is not afraid of punishment, not afraid of breaking the law, not afraid of bad luck, but it is precisely because we, as virtuous people, recognize that principles are derived from the principle that we humans are the purpose. There is no contradiction or conflict at all, it is just that humans are the purpose. This principle is an extension and expansion in the public sphere, and it is one thing.
In Kant's view, it is strange that obeying the law means there is no free will. Joke, only by obeying the law can I prove that I am free. Kant would see it this way. Why?
According to the principle that the person is the ultimate goal, Kant said that his theory of freedom and autonomy or self-discipline is the maintenance of a free social order, and we have a certain obligation to maintain a free social order. No, because he is a means to make us happier, we have an obligation to him, because if you want to destroy him, he cannot profit for you.
It's not like that, it's not because he's a means to make us happy that we consider a free social order meaningful to us, but because he's a demand made by our freedom itself. If we still believe that people are free, we should accept the demand that you must obey the rule of law. This is a demand for our freedom, a demand we make for ourselves. The demand is not made by anyone, but by us for our own freedom.
网友评论