再论康德伦理学的形式主义——兼论康德的道德目的论的意义

黑格尔对康德伦理学的形式主义所作的批评是富有影响力的,他指责康德的纯粹实践理性概念无力在内容上阐明道德的本质。而当代康德主义者在回应这一批评时,却未能在道德现象中揭示纯粹实践理性与客观价值的实质关联,也因此不能彻底反驳黑格尔的批评。通过对康德道德哲学的分析,本文将表明：一方面,形式主义进路服务于论证纯粹实践理性的可能性,并构成了对道德现象的哲学诠释的一部分;另一方面,该诠释成功地揭示了道德意识的意向结构及其事实性要素,并导向了“目的自身”的概念。因此,康德的形式主义伦理学所导向的道德目的论可以构成一种实质价值学说。在与道德目的论的关联中,康德伦理学的形式主义及其纯粹实践理性概念能够得到恰当理解和有效辩护。     

对康德的道德形而上学基础的追问及存在论意义上的超越

康德的道德哲学与其政治哲学是逻辑一致的,康德认为正义的优先性在于人先天的自由,而自由的主体坚持正义和遵从道德,则在于人的实践理性自身具有的善良意志,康德就这样通过自由、实践理性、善良意志等概念为道德奠定了基础。然而它仍然是先验的、空洞的,唯有从道德是人存在的方式这一存在论的根基处入手,才能理解道德并使其获得自身存在的坚实根基。     

康德道德哲学中双重世界的区分

在《道德底形上学之基础》第三章中,为了实践目的,康德提出感性世界与理知世界的区分。根据《道德底形上学之基础》(以下简称GMS),感性世界和理知世界既可以是两个世界,也可以是人看待自身的两种方式。康德的理论哲学与实践哲学都对感性世界和理知世界做出区分。在理论哲学中,除了解决二律背反外,这一区分最重要的作用是为实践哲学腾出位置。通过感性世界和理知世界的区分,康德解决了道德律与自由之间的循环论证问题,并通过这一区分试图论证道德律作为先天综合命题的可能性。尽管最终康德断言我们对理知世界一无所知,因而也对自由一无所知,所以道德律作为一项令式的可理解性仍然是一个问题,但至少在消极的意义上遏制了道德虚无主义的威胁。     

论康德对道德律有效性证明的演变

康德确信道德律是理性自我立法的结果,且对一切有限的理性存在者都有效。可如何证明之一直困扰着康德,并为之付出诸多了的努力。康德对道德律有效性的证明先后经历了先天演绎、事实确证、实践归谬和理性启示这四种方式,最终把上帝存在与道德律的有效性联系起来,试图以前者来证明后者。这表明:康德对道德律的确信隐藏着神学的前提。     

黑格尔的自我意识理论与实践哲学基础的真正确立

由亚里士多德奠基、围绕人的实践一行为概念并进而探讨人的自由的本质及其根据问题的实践哲学传统,在近代哲学中由于出现认识论的转向而一度中绝。德国古典哲学重新确立实践哲学的优先性,接续了古代实践哲学的传统。康德创立先验逻辑把自由领域（即社会领域）从自然领域中划分出来,并确立实践理性高于理论理性的原则,显示了他对于实践哲学的复兴所具有的重要性。在另一方面,黑格尔通过对康德实践哲学的批判,极大地推进了实践哲学的发展。如果说康德剥离出纯粹自我意识,强调了道德意识的自主性、主体性,那么黑格尔则在自我意识理论中…     

作为“行为同一性”的康德的意志自律

意志自律是康德道德哲学的重要概念,但学界对此普遍持有一种"行为者的同一性"理解,即认为意志自律的充分条件就是道德法则的服从者与道德法则的创立者具有同一性。本文作者认为这种理解是不正确的,它会在意志中引入他律的可能,从而无法表达出意志自律应有的道德性含义。相反,本文作者认为只能以"行为的同一性"作为康德意志自律概念的本质特征,它是指在意志自律中,服从法则的行为与给出法则的行为是同一的,这种行为的同一性只能就纯粹实践理性自身活动才可理解。只有通过"行为的同一性"解释,才能表明意志自律与道德性的关系。     

重构道德法则的先验演绎——对康德伦理学两次演绎的考察

在《道德形而上学的奠基》与《实践理性批判》中,康德伦理学有两次不同的先验演绎。在《道德形而上学的奠基》,这一先验演绎是康德论证"一项定言命令式如何可能"的关键环节。而在《实践理性批判》,康德否定了先验演绎的必要性与可能性,并将其归咎于我们无法对自由理念作出理论阐明。然而,作为道德法则的先验演绎的替代方案,《实践理性批判》的"理性事实"并不令人信服。本文将考察两版演绎问题,进一步重构一个新的先验演绎,它将以《道德形而上学的奠基》的演绎为基础,通过"目的王国"概念联结道德法则与理性存在者;《实践理性批判》的"敬重情感"可以为这一新的演绎提供情感意义上的动机。这将形成一个《道德形而上学的奠基》与《实践理性批判》互补的解释,目的是通过构建新的道德法则的先验演绎,尝试阐明康德的道德法则如何可以运用于现实的人。     

系统是物质的存在方式

一 马克思主义哲学的出发点是:承认客观实在,承认物质的存在。物质是不依赖于意识而可以为意识所反映的客观实在,世界的真正统一性在于它的物质性。那末,物质是以怎样的方式存在的呢? 马克思主义哲学原理已经指明,世界是在时间和空间中永恒运动着的物质世界,运动、时间和空间是物质的存在方式和基本属性。这是一条一再被并将继续被科学发展的实践所证实的真理。     

费希特的社会概念——社会经验的先验构成

费希特在勾画他的知识学时,特别是在考虑法学和道德学时,碰到一个事实,那就是在康德的批判哲学中“法概念和道德概念的实在性缺乏推演,所有的说明都把我们已具有这种概念假定为事实。”不仅如此,康德的经验概念甚至根本不允许有个人的经验。康德认为,我是通过道德规律与其他理性存在物发生关联的。“但理性存在物的界限     

试析康德伦理思想的起点及其现代价值

自由、主体、实践理性、善良意志、意志自律以至"绝对命令",在康德那里是相通的概念.正是独立于客体的主体概念奠定了道德的基础.在康德纯粹理性所划分的学科体系中,道德形而上学是作为伦理学的纯粹部分而存在的,它关注的是人的终极目的,涉及的是人的全部使命,体现的是人的高贵和尊严.所以它是优越于人类理性的任何其他追求的,而其他学科都是要为这个最高目的服务的.这是整个康德伦理思想的起点.康德伦理思想注意到了人生、人的理性的双层追求,力图将它们统一于整个先验哲学之中.     

康德关于纯粹实践理性方法论的思想

文章立足于分析康德对“客观的德性法则如何在主观上也成为实践的”这一问题的回答,梳理了康德的纯粹实践理性的方法论思想,提出了两个步骤的理论：判断力的练习与自由的意识;并分析了方法论与实践理性批判的分析论在方法上的统一。康德认为这一方法论思想对道德生活与道德培育具有重要的意义,尤其是自由的意识以及对自己的敬重是道德教育的立足点,因为它们也是人在内心防止心灵的腐败与堕落的惟一守卫者。     

Kant's Critique of Instrumental Reason

I argue against the prevalent view that in addition to the categorical imperative of morality, Kant accepts a further law of practical reason, ‘the’ Hypothetical Imperative. Kant rejects the idea that instrumental reason can be a source of a priori, objectively necessary normative requirements. His critique of instrumental reason is a central component of his argument for the supreme rational authority of morality: only moral reason can provide genuine, objective normative‐practical necessities. There are no objective practical necessities in our pursuit of empirical ends and desires. Hence, non‐moral agency is a rationally impoverished form of agency.     

Pleasure,Freedom and Grace: Schiller's “Completion” of Kant's Ethics∗

Sidgwick argued that utilitarianism was not rationally required because it could not be shown that a utilitarian theory of practical reason was better justified than a rival egoist theory of practical reason: there is a ‘dualism of practical reason’ between utilitarianism and egoism. In this paper, it is demonstrated that the dualism argument also applies to Kant's moral theory, the moral law. A prudential theory that is parallel to the moral law is devised, and it is argued that the moral law is no better justified than this prudential theory. So the moral law is not rationally required. It is suggested that the dualism argument is a completely general argument that ethics cannot be rationally required.     

Kant on space,time, and respect for the moral law as analogous formal elements of sensibility

To advance a successful reading of Kant's theory of motivation, his interpreter must have a carefully developed position on the relation between our rational and sensible capacities of mind. Unfortunately, many of Kant's commentators hold an untenably dualistic conception, understanding reason and sensibility to be necessarily conflicting aspects of human nature that saddle Kant with a rigoristic and fundamentally divided moral psychology. Against these interpreters, I argue for a reading that maintains a unified conception, claiming that we must think of reason and sensibility as interdependent capacities, which stand to one another as form to matter. Our sensible nature thus does not stand opposed to reason; its fundamental character is determined by reason's activity. I take Kant's account of moral motivation and the feeling of respect to represent the lynchpin of this unified account. Against interpreters who would emphasize either the intellectual or affective nature of respect, I claim that it should be understood as the formal element of moral sensibility, the result of practical reason determining the capacity to feel and fundamentally transforming its character. To make this argument, I draw on Kant's account of sensibility in the Critique of Pure Reason, claiming that space, time, and respect for the moral law are analogous formal elements of sensibility.     

Postmodernism's Self-Nullifying Reading of Nietzsche

In his very rich and insightful book, Kant's Theory of Freedom, Henry Allison argues that in the first Critique Kant's reason for rejecting Humean compatibilism in favor of an incompatibilist conception of practical freedom stems, not from a specific concern to ground morality, as many have supposed, but from his general conception of rational agency, which Allison explicates in terms of the idea of practical spontaneity. Practically spontaneous rational agency is subject to imperatives and therefore distinct from Humean agency. But it is not necessarily subject to the categorical imperative and hence is distinct from fully spontaneous (transcendentally free) moral agency. A conception thus emerges of an agent with limited spontaneity, subject to hypothetical but not categorical imperatives. A doubt may be raised, however, as to whether Kant's view can accommodate this conception of limited practical spontaneity. Reflection on Kant's notion of a hypothetical imperative suggests that the idea of limited spontaneity is in danger of either collapsing into the Humean picture or else turning out to be equivalent to the conception of full spontaneity appropriate to moral agency. There is thus reason to suppose that, for Kant, we would not be bound by imperatives at all if we were not bound by the categorical imperative.     

Moral Imagination,Perception, and Judgment

This paper develops an account of moral imagination that identifies the ways in which imaginative capacities contribute to our ability to make reason practical in the world, beyond their roles in moral perception and moral judgment. In section 1, I explain my understanding of what it means to qualify imagination as ‘moral,’ and go on in section 2 to identify four main conceptions of moral imagination as an aspect of practical reason in philosophical ethics. I briefly situate these alternative ideas in relation to standard accounts of moral perception and judgment with reference to some guiding examples. In section 3, I argue that the fourth conception of moral imagination, moral imagination understood as the capacity to generate new possibilities for morally good action, is not well accounted for within the standard categories of practical reason. Section 4 clarifies the scope and importance of this capacity and defends its claim to increased theoretical attention.     

The place of the unconscious in critiques of systematic prejudice: Lessons from MacKinnon and Critical Race Theory

In this paper, I argue that so called “systematic critiques” of the liberal conception of law in Catherine MacKinnon and Critical Race Theory which have traditionally been seen to reject liberalism should really be understood as subjecting the liberal conception of law as impartial and just to an immanent critique. Critical Race Theory and MacKinnon both seek to unmask the seemingly neutral subject which authorizes law as in reality a hegemonic and oppressive subject. They also employ the tools of liberalism, demanding justice and equal protection under the law. I argue that the apparent contradiction of their demands can be understood by seeing the subject itself as combining these contradictions at the level of the relation between the unconscious and consciousness. The ego strives for rational self-organization while the unconscious contains sedimented socially transmitted prejudice. There is thus room within both for the struggle for freedom and justice espoused by liberalism at the conscious level as well as for the unconscious perpetuation of prejudice and domination. I conclude that MacKinnon’s work and that of CRT show that liberalism must not be abandoned as post-structuralism does, but that liberals is in fact aided by its critics.     

Reasonable Pluralism,Interculturalism, and Sterba on Question-Beggingness

In From Rationality to Equality, James Sterba (From rationality to equality. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013) argues that the non-moral, and non-controversial, principle of logic, the principle that good arguments do not beg-the-question, provides a rationally conclusive response to egoism. He calls this “the principle of non-question-beggingness” and it is supposed to justify a conception of “Morality as Compromise.” Sterba’s basic idea is that principles of morality provide a non-question-begging compromise between self-interested reasons and other-regarding reasons. I will focus, first, on Sterba’s rejection of the alternative Kantian rationalist justification of morality, and second, I discuss the logical principle of non-question-beggingness and I argue that Sterba is wrong to assume that there is a formal, logical requirement that a rational egoist must provide a non-question-begging defense of egoism. I argue that, like the Kantian, Sterba needs a more substantial conception of practical reason to derive his conclusion. My third focus is the problem of reasonable pluralism and public reason (Rawls in Political liberalism. Columbia University Press, New York, 1996; The law of peoples with the idea of public reason revisited. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1999). The Rawlsian principle of public reason is analogous to Sterba’s principle of non-question-beggingness. Sterba recognizes that public policies should respect competing perspectives and that a public conception of justice must be justifiable to all reasonable people. The problem is that that reasonable people disagree about fundamental moral questions. Rawls calls this the fact of reasonable pluralism. I argue that an intercultural conception of justice is necessary to provide a response to reasonable pluralism and a shared basis for public reason.     

Reinhold and the Promise of a Higher Metaphysics

While Reinhold was no doubt interested in harnessing Kantian practical reason as a rational ground for our fundamental religious convictions, it remains unclear as to whether he reserves any role for theoretical or speculative reason in moral faith, and if so, what. This paper argues that he continues to assign an important role to speculative reason in the establishment and dissemination of a “religion of reason” in his efforts across three major texts of the Jena period (namely, the 1786–1787 Letters on the Kantian Philosophy , the 1789 Attempt at the New Theory of the Human Power of Representation , and the 1790 first edition of Contributions to the Correction of the Misunderstandings of Previous Philosophers ) to outline a “new metaphysics” that accounts for supersensible objects (God, the soul, freedom, and the physical, the moral and the intelligible world) in terms of forms of reason. It shows how Reinhold develops a unified account of speculative and practical reason by extending the former's role to include that of producing ideas that pertain to the practical postulates and narrowing the latter's role to that of imparting objective reality and further content to the ideas.     

Ethical objectivity: The test of time

According to many, evolutionary accounts of ethics undermine the prospects of its objective foundation. By contrast, this paper argues that such evolutionary accounts discredit only the absolutist construal of moral truths as timeless but supports other conceptions of objectivity as tested by time. Insofar as Kantian constructivism addresses the problem of ethical objectivity from the standpoint of temporal rational agents, it is not vulnerable to debunking arguments based on evolutionary explanations. In fact, recent work on evolutionary accounts of reasoning and inferences not only coheres with but it also reinforces the constructivist conception of practical reason as a problem‐solving cooperative device apt to temporal and interdependent rational agents.