康德道德哲學文集（註釋版）

有兩種東西，我對它們的思考越是深沉和持久，他們在我心靈中喚起的驚奇和敬畏就會越來越歷久彌新，一是我們頭上浩瀚的星空，另一就是我們心中的道德。

康德的三大批判內容如下： 1、純粹理性批判：理論理性低於實踐理性，科學知識應該讓位給宗教信仰。 2、實踐理性批判：人在絕對服從道德律令的情況下，不應該只是去尋找快樂，而應該去尋找上帝賜予人們的幸福。 3、判斷力批判：尋求兩個分割的世界的溝通，認爲自由的道德律令要在感性的現實世界實現出來，其中介是反思判斷力。讀得很是費勁！半懂不懂，勉強讀完。期間幾乎崩潰卻又欲罷不能。這大概就是古典哲學的魅力吧！五星推薦。9分。

康德認爲知識是人類同時透過感官與理性得到的。經驗對知識的產生是必要的，但不是唯一的要素。

1. 擺脫“功利”的純粹道德 在康德之前，很多哲學家討論道德時，總會給道德找一個“外在的理由”。比如： 經驗主義/功利主義：做善事是因爲它能帶來快樂、減少痛苦，或者對社會有用。 神學道德：做善事是因爲上帝開恩，不聽話會下地獄。 但康德把這些全部推翻了。他認爲，如果爲了“追求幸福”或“逃避懲罰”而去做一件事，哪怕這件事表面上再高尚，它也不具備道德價值。 真正的道德，必須是“爲了義務而行義務”（Duty for duty's sake）。比如，你不去欺騙別人，不應該是因爲“誠信能帶來更多客戶”（那是精明），而僅僅是因爲“欺騙本身違背了道德律”。這種對純粹性的追求，讓人在讀的過程中感受到一種近乎冷酷的崇高。 2. 絕對命令（Categorical Imperative）的理性邊界 康德提出的“絕對命令”最核心的一個公式是：“只依據那個你同時願意它成爲普遍法則的準則行動。” 這是一種極其強大的理性自律。在做任何決定前，先問自己：“如果全世界所有人動不動都像我這樣做，這個世界能運轉下去嗎？” 如果我借錢時撒謊，而大家都撒謊，那麼“借錢”這個概念本身就崩潰了。 如果我遇到困難就選擇放棄生命，而大家都這樣做，人類就滅絕了。 康德把道德從“個人的情感喜好”提升到了“普遍的理性邏輯”。他告訴我們，道德不是一種隨時可以變通的“權宜之計”，而是如同數學公式一樣嚴密、不可妥協的宇宙法則。 3. “人是目的，而不僅僅是手段” 這大概是全書最溫暖、也最具有現代人文關懷的一句話。 在日常生活中，我們不可避免地會把別人當成“手段”：消費者把商家當成買東西的手段，僱主把員工當成賺錢的手段。康德並不否認這種社會現實，但他強調，在任何時候，你必須同時把對方當成一個擁有獨立尊嚴的“目的”來尊重。 任何將人徹底工具化、奴隸化、或者爲了“宏大敘事”而犧牲無辜個體的行爲，在康德的體系裏都是絕對的惡。在商品化、數字化氾濫的今天，重讀這句話，依然震耳欲聾。

關於groundwork與康德道德道德哲學的一點思考，原創書評，禁止轉載二傳。 In Section 1 of the Groundwork, Kant brings up that an action not done for the sake of duty has no moral worth and bring up three propositions based on this indication. I partially disagree. 1.     Inclination Kant begins with putting up the concept of duty, which “contains that of a good will” and being under certain subjective limitations will make it more recognizable. [Ak 4:397]. Good actions are done neither from a self-serving aim nor from duty. Duty must be done without inclination. It is not moral even if you desire to do goods without any purpose of utility to self, because you are taking joy from being beneficent and earning your-self psychological interests. Only the action contrary to one’s wishes and done after struggle has the highest moral worth. However, in my opinion, one’s actions are inevitably manipulated by one’s will. By doing things out of duty, you are taking delight in the process of forcing yourself and struggling because that makes you feel you have realized your moral value. Though less direct, it is also doing good to one's own inclination. Therefore, I think there will be no true moral if we follow Kant’s opinions. 2.     Maxims The second proposition is: an action from duty has its moral worth not in the aim that is supposed to be attained by it, but rather in the maxim in accordance with which it is resolved upon. [Ak 4:400] This proposition is based on his idea of good will: “The good will is good not through its efficacy for attaining any intended end, but only through its willing, i.e., good in itself”. Besides, what the good will affects or accomplishes in actuality cannot affect its worth. That makes me wonder, for example, I have the ability to foresee the future. I used to love animals, but I force myself to slaughter all bats in China in order to prevent Coronavirus. The dead bodies pile up into mountains and blood flows into rivers. The global ecology is also affected. However, my maxim is good (one should love others and people should be treated as ends), and I’m doing things out of duty. Is it moral? I don’t think so. I don’t think methods can be free from moral judgment even though the maxims are good. 3.     Reason The third proposition Kant demonstrates is that “Duty is the necessity of an action from respect for the law” [Ak 4:400]. Finding and stick to the object of respect is the mission of reason. It is related to Kant’s idea about the relationship of reason and good will. His argument goes as follows: First, nature arranges the best instrument to achieve the real end for creatures. Second, instinct is subordinated to reason in the case of humans. Third, the reason is a worse instrument than the instinct to achieve one’s happiness (I think by “instinct”, Kant means “completely destined by nature”). Therefore, seeking one’s happiness can’t be the highest good; “Reason recognizes its highest practical vocation in the grounding of a good will.” [Ak 4:396] I don’t think those three arguments are reliable. Let’s skip the first one because it simply built on the concept of nature which is basically like god and cannot be proved nor disproved. The second argument about the relationship between instinct and reason actually indicates these two are divided and opposite. However, for a utilitarian, why is the purpose all that matters? For a Kant believer, why is it that our maxims matter? In my opinion, all of our reason and moral judgments are based on intuitions in the root. I also doubt the third assumption. Why is the reason a worse instrument than the instinct to achieve one’s happiness? The answer given by Kant is “the consequences of my supposed cunning are not so easy to foresee” [Ak4:403]. However, to do good for the sake of duty we should follow the principle” I ought never to conduct myself except so that I could also will that my maxim become a universal law.” [Ak4:401] If the reason isn’t enough to help us foresee the consequences of our own deed, I don’t think we can use it to predict the consequences where our maxim becomes a universal law. In conclusion, I don’t agree to “an action not done for the sake of duty has no moral worth”.

道德上的崇高，就是一種最高的至真至善至美。對於一個人來說，無論其地位有多高，財富有富，名聲有多盛，倘若，道德卑劣和低下，一切的一切都只會遭到人們的唾棄與不屑！

位我上者，燦爛星空； 道德律令，在我心中。 2020年第一讀，從李秋零老師版的康德開始～

道德本來就不是教導我們如何使自己幸福，而是教導我們無愧於我們已經擁有的幸福。