the critique of practical reason-第11章

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！


onditioned；　if　they　were　raised　to　the　rank　of　necessary　principles　of　cognition；　but　is　practical；　and　would　ruin　morality　altogether　were　not　the　voice　of　reason　in　reference　to　the　will　so　clear；　so　irrepressible；　so　distinctly　audible；　even　to　the　commonest　men。　It　can　only；　indeed；　be　maintained　in　the　perplexing　speculations　of　the　schools；　which　are　bold　enough　to　shut　their　ears　against　that　heavenly　voice；　in　order　to　support　a　theory　that　costs　no　trouble。　　　Suppose　that　an　acquaintance　whom　you　otherwise　liked　were　to　attempt　to　justify　himself　to　you　for　having　borne　false　witness；　first　by　alleging　the；　in　his　view；　sacred　duty　of　consulting　his　own　happiness；　then　by　enumerating　the　advantages　which　he　had　gained　thereby；　pointing　out　the　prudence　he　had　shown　in　securing　himself　against　detection；　even　by　yourself；　to　whom　he　now　reveals　the　secret；　only　in　order　that　he　may　be　able　to　deny　it　at　any　time；　and　suppose　he　were　then　to　affirm；　in　all　seriousness；　that　he　has　fulfilled　a　true　human　duty；　you　would　either　laugh　in　his　face；　or　shrink　back　from　him　with　disgust；　and　yet；　if　a　man　has　regulated　his　principles　of　action　solely　with　a　view　to　his　own　advantage；　you　would　have　nothing　whatever　to　object　against　this　mode　of　proceeding。　Or　suppose　some　one　recommends　you　a　man　as　steward；　as　a　man　to　whom　you　can　blindly　trust　all　your　affairs；　and；　in　order　to　inspire　you　with　confidence；　extols　him　as　a　prudent　man　who　thoroughly　understands　his　own　interest；　and　is　so　indefatigably　active　that　he　lets　slip　no　opportunity　of　advancing　it；　lastly；　lest　you　should　be　afraid　of　finding　a　vulgar　selfishness　in　him；　praises　the　good　taste　with　which　he　lives；　not　seeking　his　pleasure　in　money…making；　or　in　coarse　wantonness；　but　in　the　enlargement　of　his　knowledge；　in　instructive　intercourse　with　a　select　circle；　and　even　in　relieving　the　needy；　while　as　to　the　means　（which；　of　course；　derive　all　their　value　from　the　end）；　he　is　not　particular；　and　is　ready　to　use　other　people's　money　for　the　purpose　as　if　it　were　his　own；　provided　only　he　knows　that　he　can　do　so　safely；　and　without　discovery；　you　would　either　believe　that　the　recommender　was　mocking　you；　or　that　he　had　lost　his　senses。　So　sharply　and　clearly　marked　are　the　boundaries　of　morality　and　self…love　that　even　the　commonest　eye　cannot　fail　to　distinguish　whether　a　thing　belongs　to　the　one　or　the　other。　The　few　remarks　that　follow　may　appear　superfluous　where　the　truth　is　so　plain；　but　at　least　they　may　serve　to　give　a　little　more　distinctness　to　the　judgement　of　common　sense。　　　The　principle　of　happiness　may；　indeed；　furnish　maxims；　but　never　such　as　would　be　competent　to　be　laws　of　the　will；　even　if　universal　happiness　were　made　the　object。　For　since　the　knowledge　of　this　rests　on　mere　empirical　data；　since　every　man's　judgement　on　it　depends　very　much　on　his　particular　point　of　view；　which　is　itself　moreover　very　variable；　it　can　supply　only　general　rules；　not　universal；　that　is；　it　can　give　rules　which　on　the　average　will　most　frequently　fit；　but　not　rules　which　must　hold　good　always　and　necessarily；　hence；　no　practical　laws　can　be　founded　on　it。　Just　because　in　this　case　an　object　of　choice　is　the　foundation　of　the　rule　and　must　therefore　precede　it；　the　rule　can　refer　to　nothing　but　what　is　＇felt＇；　and　therefore　it　refers　to　experience　and　is　founded　on　it；　and　then　the　variety　of　judgement　must　be　endless。　This　principle；　therefore；　does　not　prescribe　the　same　practical　rules　to　all　rational　beings；　although　the　rules　are　all　included　under　a　common　title；　namely；　that　of　happiness。　The　moral　law；　however；　is　conceived　as　objectively　necessary；　only　because　it　holds　for　everyone　that　has　reason　and　will。　　　The　maxim　of　self…love　（prudence）　only　advises；　the　law　of　morality　commands。　Now　there　is　a　great　difference　between　that　which　we　are　advised　to　do　and　that　to　which　we　are　obliged。　　　The　commonest　intelligence　can　easily　and　without　hesitation　see　what；　on　the　principle　of　autonomy　of　the　will；　requires　to　be　done；　but　on　supposition　of　heteronomy　of　the　will；　it　is　bard　and　requires　knowledge　of　the　world　to　see　what　is　to　be　done。　That　is　to　say；　what　duty　is；　is　plain　of　itself　to　everyone；　but　what　is　to　bring　true　durable　advantage；　such　as　will　extend　to　the　whole　of　one's　existence；　is　always　veiled　in　impenetrable　obscurity；　and　much　prudence　is　required　to　adapt　the　practical　rule　founded　on　it　to　the　ends　of　life；　even　tolerably；　by　making　proper　exceptions。　But　the　moral　law　commands　the　most　punctual　obedience　from　everyone；　it　must；　therefore；　not　be　so　difficult　to　judge　what　it　requires　to　be　done；　that　the　commonest　unpractised　understanding；　even　without　worldly　prudence；　should　fail　to　apply　it　rightly。　　　It　is　always　in　everyone's　power　to　satisfy　the　categorical　command　of　morality；　whereas　it　is　seldom　possible；　and　by　no　means　so　to　everyone；　to　satisfy　the　empirically　conditioned　precept　of　happiness；　even　with　regard　to　a　single　purpose。　The　reason　is　that　in　the　former　case　there　is　question　only　of　the　maxim；　which　must　be　genuine　and　pure；　but　in　the　latter　case　there　is　question　also　of　one's　capacity　and　physical　power　to　realize　a　desired　object。　A　command　that　everyone　should　try　to　make　himself　happy　would　be　foolish；　for　one　never　commands　anyone　to　do　what　he　of　himself　infallibly　wishes　to　do。　We　must　only　command　the　means；　or　rather　supply　them；　since　he　cannot　do　everything　that　he　wishes。　But　to　command　morality　under　the　name　of　duty　is　quite　rational；　for；　in　the　first　place；　not　everyone　is　willing　to　obey　its　precepts　if　they　oppose　his　inclinations；　and　as　to　the　means　of　obeying　this　law；　these　need　not　in　this　case　be　taught；　for　in　this　respect　whatever　he　wishes　to　do　be　can　do。　　　He　who　has　lost　at　play　may　be　vexed　at　himself　and　his　folly；　but　if　he　is　conscious　of　having　cheated　at　play　（although　he　has　gained　thereby）；　he　must　despise　himself　as　soon　as　he　compares　himself　with　the　moral　law。　This　must；　therefore；　be　something　different　from　the　principle　of　private　happiness。　For　a　man　must　have　a　different　criterion　when　he　is　compelled　to　say　to　himself：　〃I　am　a　worthless　fellow；　though　I　have　filled　my　purse〃；　and　when　he　approves　himself；　and　says：　〃I　am　a　prudent　man；　for　I　have　enriched　my　treasure。〃　　　Finally；　there　is　something　further　in　the　idea　of　our　practical　reason；　which　accompanies　the　transgression　of　a　moral　law…　namely；　its　ill　desert。　Now　the　notion　of　punishment；　as　such；　cannot　be　united　with　that　of　becoming　a　partaker　of　happiness；　for　although　he　who　inflicts　the　punishment　may　at　the　same　time　have　the　benevolent　purpose　of　directing　this　punishment　to　this　end；　yet　it　must　first　be　justified　in　itself　as　punishment；　i。e。；　as　mere　harm；　so　that　if　it　stopped　there；　and　the　person　punished　could　get　no　glimpse　of　kindness　hidden　behind　this　harshness；　he　must　yet　admit　that　justice　was　done　him；　and　that　his　reward　was　perfectly　suitable　to　his　conduct。　In　every　punishment；　as　such；　there　must　first　be　justice；　and　this　constitutes　the　essence　of　the　notion。　Benevolence　may；　indeed；　be　united　with　it；　but　the　man　who　has　deserved　punishment　has　not　the　least　reaso