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！
will； united with supreme blessedness； is the cause of all happiness
in the world； so far as happiness stands in strict ｝ relation to
morality （as the worthiness of being happy）； the ideal of the
supreme Good。 supreme original good； that pure reason can find the
ground of the practically necessary connection of both elements of the
highest derivative good； and accordingly of an intelligible； that
is； moral world。 Now since we are necessitated by reason to conceive
ourselves as belonging to such a world； while the senses present to us
nothing but a world of phenomena； we must assume the former as a
consequence of our conduct in the world of sense （since the world of
sense gives us no hint of it）； and therefore as future in relation
to us。 Thus God and a future life are two hypotheses which；
according to the principles of pure reason； are inseparable from the
obligation which this reason imposes upon us。
Morality per se constitutes a system。 But we can form no system of
happiness； except in so far as it is dispensed in strict proportion to
morality。 But this is only possible in the intelligible world； under a
wise author and ruler。 Such a ruler； together with life in such a
world； which we must look upon as future； reason finds itself
compelled to assume； or it must regard the moral laws as idle
dreams； since the necessary consequence which this same reason
connects with them must； without this hypothesis； fall to the
ground。 Hence also the moral laws are universally regarded as
commands； which they could not be did they not connect a priori
adequate consequences with their dictates； and thus carry with them
promises and threats。 But this； again； they could not do； did they not
reside in a necessary being； as the Supreme Good； which alone can
render such a teleological unity possible。
Leibnitz termed the world； when viewed in relation to the rational
beings which it contains； and the moral relations in which they
stand to each other； under the government of the Supreme Good； the
kingdom of Grace； and distinguished it from the kingdom of Nature；
in which these rational beings live； under moral laws； indeed； but
expect no other consequences from their actions than such as follow
according to the course of nature in the world of sense。 To view
ourselves； therefore； as in the kingdom of grace； in which all
happiness awaits us； except in so far as we ourselves limit our
participation in it by actions which render us unworthy of
happiness； is a practically necessary idea of reason。
Practical laws； in so far as they are subjective grounds of actions；
that is； subjective principles； are termed maxims。 The judgements of
moral according to in its purity and ultimate results are framed
according ideas； the observance of its laws； according to according to
maxims。
The whole course of our life must be subject to moral maxims； but
this is impossible； unless with the moral law； which is a mere idea；
reason connects an efficient cause which ordains to all conduct
which is in conformity with the moral law an issue either in this or
in another life； which is in exact conformity with our highest aims。
Thus； without a God and without a world； invisible to us now； but
hoped for； the glorious ideas of morality are； indeed； objects of
approbation and of admiration； but cannot be the springs of purpose
and action。 For they do not satisfy all the aims which are natural
to every rational being； and which are determined a priori by pure
reason itself； and necessary。
Happiness alone is； in the view of reason； far from being the
complete good。 Reason does not approve of it （however much inclination
may desire it）； except as united with desert。 On the other hand；
morality alone； and with it； mere desert； is likewise far from being
the complete good。 To make it complete； he who conducts himself in a
manner not unworthy of happiness； must be able to hope for the
possession of happiness。 Even reason； unbiased by private ends； or
interested considerations； cannot judge otherwise； if it puts itself
in the place of a being whose business it is to dispense all happiness
to others。 For in the practical idea both points are essentially
combined； though in such a way that participation in happiness is
rendered possible by the moral disposition； as its condition； and
not conversely； the moral disposition by the prospect of happiness。
For a disposition which should require the prospect of happiness as
its necessary condition would not be moral； and hence also would not
be worthy of complete happiness… a happiness which； in the view of
reason； recognizes no limitation but such as arises from our own
immoral conduct。
Happiness； therefore； in exact proportion with the morality of
rational beings （whereby they are made worthy of happiness）；
constitutes alone the supreme good of a world into which we absolutely
must transport ourselves according to the commands of pure but
practical reason。 This world is； it is true； only an intelligible
world； for of such a systematic unity of ends as it requires； the
world of sense gives us no hint。 Its reality can be based on nothing
else but the hypothesis of a supreme original good。 In it
independent reason； equipped with all the sufficiency of a supreme
cause； founds； maintains； and fulfils the universal order of things；
with the most perfect teleological harmony； however much this order
may be hidden from us in the world of sense。
This moral theology has the peculiar advantage； in contrast with
speculative theology； of leading inevitably to the conception of a
sole； perfect； and rational First Cause； whereof speculative
theology does not give us any indication on objective grounds； far
less any convincing evidence。 For we find neither in transcendental
nor in natural theology； however far reason may lead us in these；
any ground to warrant us in assuming the existence of one only
Being； which stands at the head of all natural causes； and on which
these are entirely dependent。 On the other band； if we take our
stand on moral unity as a necessary law of the universe； and from this
point of view consider what is necessary to give this law adequate
efficiency and； for us； obligatory force； we must come to the
conclusion that there is one only supreme will； which comprehends
all these laws in itself。 For how； under different wills； should we
find complete unity of ends？ This will must be omnipotent； that all
nature and its relation to morality in the world may be subject to it；
omniscient； that it may have knowledge of the most secret feelings and
their moral worth； omnipresent； that it may be at hand to supply every
necessity to which the highest weal of the world may give rise；
eternal； that this harmony of nature and liberty may never fail； and
so on。
But this systematic unity of ends in this world of intelligences…
which； as mere nature； is only a world of sense； but； as a system of
freedom of volition； m