康德道德哲学文集（注释版）

有两种东西，我对它们的思考越是深沉和持久，他们在我心灵中唤起的惊奇和敬畏就会越来越历久弥新，一是我们头上浩瀚的星空，另一就是我们心中的道德。

康德的三大批判内容如下： 1、纯粹理性批判：理论理性低于实践理性，科学知识应该让位给宗教信仰。 2、实践理性批判：人在绝对服从道德律令的情况下，不应该只是去寻找快乐，而应该去寻找上帝赐予人们的幸福。 3、判断力批判：寻求两个分割的世界的沟通，认为自由的道德律令要在感性的现实世界实现出来，其中介是反思判断力。读得很是费劲！半懂不懂，勉强读完。期间几乎崩溃却又欲罢不能。这大概就是古典哲学的魅力吧！五星推荐。9分。

康德认为知识是人类同时透过感官与理性得到的。经验对知识的产生是必要的，但不是唯一的要素。

1. 摆脱“功利”的纯粹道德 在康德之前，很多哲学家讨论道德时，总会给道德找一个“外在的理由”。比如： 经验主义/功利主义：做善事是因为它能带来快乐、减少痛苦，或者对社会有用。 神学道德：做善事是因为上帝开恩，不听话会下地狱。 但康德把这些全部推翻了。他认为，如果为了“追求幸福”或“逃避惩罚”而去做一件事，哪怕这件事表面上再高尚，它也不具备道德价值。 真正的道德，必须是“为了义务而行义务”（Duty for duty's sake）。比如，你不去欺骗别人，不应该是因为“诚信能带来更多客户”（那是精明），而仅仅是因为“欺骗本身违背了道德律”。这种对纯粹性的追求，让人在读的过程中感受到一种近乎冷酷的崇高。 2. 绝对命令（Categorical Imperative）的理性边界 康德提出的“绝对命令”最核心的一个公式是：“只依据那个你同时愿意它成为普遍法则的准则行动。” 这是一种极其强大的理性自律。在做任何决定前，先问自己：“如果全世界所有人动不动都像我这样做，这个世界能运转下去吗？” 如果我借钱时撒谎，而大家都撒谎，那么“借钱”这个概念本身就崩溃了。 如果我遇到困难就选择放弃生命，而大家都这样做，人类就灭绝了。 康德把道德从“个人的情感喜好”提升到了“普遍的理性逻辑”。他告诉我们，道德不是一种随时可以变通的“权宜之计”，而是如同数学公式一样严密、不可妥协的宇宙法则。 3. “人是目的，而不仅仅是手段” 这大概是全书最温暖、也最具有现代人文关怀的一句话。 在日常生活中，我们不可避免地会把别人当成“手段”：消费者把商家当成买东西的手段，雇主把员工当成赚钱的手段。康德并不否认这种社会现实，但他强调，在任何时候，你必须同时把对方当成一个拥有独立尊严的“目的”来尊重。 任何将人彻底工具化、奴隶化、或者为了“宏大叙事”而牺牲无辜个体的行为，在康德的体系里都是绝对的恶。在商品化、数字化泛滥的今天，重读这句话，依然震耳欲聋。

关于groundwork与康德道德道德哲学的一点思考，原创书评，禁止转载二传。 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，就是一种最高的至真至善至美。对于一个人来说，无论其地位有多高，财富有富，名声有多盛，倘若，道德卑劣和低下，一切的一切都只会遭到人们的唾弃与不屑！

位我上者，灿烂星空； 道德律令，在我心中。 2020年第一读，从李秋零老师版的康德开始～

道德本来就不是教导我们如何使自己幸福，而是教导我们无愧于我们已经拥有的幸福。