TRANSKRIPTIO 🔗
WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.520 --> 00:00:06.599
Preface of Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. This
2
00:00:06.719 --> 00:00:10.599
is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the
3
00:00:10.640 --> 00:00:15.679
public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit
4
00:00:15.960 --> 00:00:23.800
LibriVox dot org. Recording by Martin Geeson. Fundamental Principles of
5
00:00:23.839 --> 00:00:29.800
the Metaphysic of Morals by Immanuel Kant, translated by Thomas
6
00:00:29.920 --> 00:00:41.600
Kingsmill Abbot preface. Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into three sciences, physics, ethics,
7
00:00:41.640 --> 00:00:46.520
and logic. This division is perfectly suitable to the nature
8
00:00:46.600 --> 00:00:49.719
of the thing, and the only improvement that can be
9
00:00:49.799 --> 00:00:52.719
made in it is to add the principle on which
10
00:00:52.759 --> 00:00:56.640
it is based, so that we may both satisfy ourselves
11
00:00:56.719 --> 00:01:01.159
of its completeness and also be able to deter incorrectly
12
00:01:01.560 --> 00:01:08.920
the necessary subdivisions. All rational knowledge is either material or formal.
13
00:01:09.920 --> 00:01:15.000
The former considers some object. The latter is concerned only
14
00:01:15.120 --> 00:01:19.000
with the form of the understanding and of the reason itself,
15
00:01:19.519 --> 00:01:23.640
and with the universal laws of thought in general, without
16
00:01:23.760 --> 00:01:32.200
distinction of its objects. Formal philosophy is called logic. Material philosophy, however,
17
00:01:32.599 --> 00:01:36.000
has to do with determinate objects and the laws to
18
00:01:36.040 --> 00:01:41.280
which they are subject is again twofold. For these laws
19
00:01:41.280 --> 00:01:46.159
are either laws of nature or of freedom. The science
20
00:01:46.200 --> 00:01:50.439
of the former is physics, that of the latter ethics.
21
00:01:51.239 --> 00:01:56.599
They are also called natural philosophy and moral philosophy, respectively.
22
00:01:58.120 --> 00:02:02.640
Logic cannot have any hirical part, that is, a part
23
00:02:02.719 --> 00:02:06.879
in which the universal and necessary laws of thought should
24
00:02:06.959 --> 00:02:11.919
rest on grounds taken from experience. Otherwise it would not
25
00:02:12.080 --> 00:02:16.960
be logic i e. A canon for the understanding or
26
00:02:17.039 --> 00:02:22.039
the reason, valid for all thought and capable of demonstration.
27
00:02:23.560 --> 00:02:28.000
Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have
28
00:02:28.080 --> 00:02:32.199
their empirical part, since the former has to determine the
29
00:02:32.319 --> 00:02:36.599
laws of nature as an object of experience. The latter
30
00:02:36.719 --> 00:02:40.039
the laws of the human will, so far as it
31
00:02:40.120 --> 00:02:46.080
is affected by nature. The former, however, being laws according
32
00:02:46.120 --> 00:02:50.919
to which everything does happen, the latter laws according to
33
00:02:51.000 --> 00:02:56.599
which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider
34
00:02:56.639 --> 00:03:01.439
the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not.
35
00:03:03.000 --> 00:03:07.199
We may call all philosophy empirical so far as it
36
00:03:07.240 --> 00:03:11.080
is based on grounds of experience. On the other hand,
37
00:03:11.479 --> 00:03:16.560
that which delivers its doctrines from a priori principles alone
38
00:03:17.080 --> 00:03:22.599
we may call pure philosophy. When the latter is merely formal,
39
00:03:22.879 --> 00:03:27.199
it is logic. If it is restricted to definite objects
40
00:03:27.240 --> 00:03:32.439
of the understanding, it is metaphysic. In this way there
41
00:03:32.479 --> 00:03:37.360
arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic, a metaphysic of
42
00:03:37.520 --> 00:03:42.759
nature and a metaphysic of morals. Physics will thus have
43
00:03:42.840 --> 00:03:47.159
an empirical and also a rational part. It is the
44
00:03:47.240 --> 00:03:51.280
same with ethics, but here the empirical part might have
45
00:03:51.400 --> 00:03:56.759
the special name of practical anthropology, the name morality being
46
00:03:56.800 --> 00:04:03.719
appropriated to the rational part. All trades, arts, and handiworks
47
00:04:04.080 --> 00:04:08.840
have gained by division of labor, namely, when instead of
48
00:04:08.879 --> 00:04:13.599
one man doing everything, each confines himself to a certain
49
00:04:13.840 --> 00:04:18.480
kind of work, distinct from others in the treatment it requires,
50
00:04:19.199 --> 00:04:22.160
so as to be able to perform it with greater facility,
51
00:04:22.480 --> 00:04:26.959
and in the greatest perfection, Where the different kinds of
52
00:04:27.000 --> 00:04:31.199
work are not distinguished and divided, where every one is
53
00:04:31.240 --> 00:04:36.199
a jack of all trades, their manufactures remain still in
54
00:04:36.240 --> 00:04:42.160
the greatest barbarism, it might deserve to be considered where
55
00:04:42.199 --> 00:04:46.120
the pure philosophy, in all its parts, does not require
56
00:04:46.160 --> 00:04:50.199
a man specially devoted to it. And whether it would
57
00:04:50.199 --> 00:04:53.720
not be better for the whole business of science if
58
00:04:53.800 --> 00:04:57.399
those who to please the tastes of the public are
59
00:04:57.439 --> 00:05:02.519
wont to blend the rational and imperial elements together, mixed
60
00:05:02.560 --> 00:05:06.920
in all sorts of proportions unknown to themselves, and who
61
00:05:06.959 --> 00:05:12.240
call themselves independent thinkers, giving the name of minute philosophers
62
00:05:12.399 --> 00:05:15.720
to those who apply themselves to the rational part. Only
63
00:05:16.560 --> 00:05:20.399
if these, I say, were warned not to carry on
64
00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:25.759
two employments together which differ widely in the treatment they demand,
65
00:05:26.519
Load full transcript
--> 00:05:29.959
for each of which perhaps a special talent is required,
66
00:05:30.519 --> 00:05:35.600
and the combination of which in one person only produces bunglers.
67
00:05:37.000 --> 00:05:40.040
But I only ask here whether the nature of science
68
00:05:40.120 --> 00:05:44.000
does not require that we should always carefully separate the
69
00:05:44.040 --> 00:05:49.519
empirical from the rational part. And prefix to physics proper
70
00:05:50.120 --> 00:05:55.680
or empirical physics a metaphysic of nature, and to practical
71
00:05:55.720 --> 00:06:01.120
anthropology a metaphysic of morals, which must be carefully cleared
72
00:06:01.199 --> 00:06:04.680
of everything empirical, so that we may know how much
73
00:06:04.720 --> 00:06:09.600
can be accomplished by pure reason in both cases and
74
00:06:09.720 --> 00:06:14.800
from what sources it draws. This its a priori teaching,
75
00:06:15.279 --> 00:06:19.360
and that whether the latter inquiry is conducted by all
76
00:06:19.480 --> 00:06:24.600
moralists whose name is legion, or only by some who
77
00:06:24.680 --> 00:06:29.519
feel a calling there too. As my concern here is
78
00:06:29.560 --> 00:06:34.319
with moral philosophy, I limit the question suggested to this,
79
00:06:35.399 --> 00:06:39.399
whether it is not of the utmost necessity to construct
80
00:06:39.399 --> 00:06:43.759
a pure thing which is only empirical and which belongs
81
00:06:43.800 --> 00:06:48.639
to anthropology, or that such a philosophy must be possible,
82
00:06:49.040 --> 00:06:52.480
is evident from the common idea of duty and of
83
00:06:52.519 --> 00:06:56.759
the moral laws. Everyone must admit that if a law
84
00:06:56.879 --> 00:07:00.040
is to have moral force, i e. To be the
85
00:07:00.160 --> 00:07:06.639
basis of an obligation, it must carry with it absolute necessity. That,
86
00:07:06.720 --> 00:07:11.160
for example, the precept thou shalt not lie is not
87
00:07:11.360 --> 00:07:15.600
valid for men alone, as if other rational beings had
88
00:07:15.680 --> 00:07:18.519
no need to observe it, and so with all the
89
00:07:18.560 --> 00:07:23.480
other moral laws properly so called. That therefore the basis
90
00:07:23.519 --> 00:07:27.519
of obligation must not be sought in the nature of man,
91
00:07:28.240 --> 00:07:31.040
or in the circumstances in the world in which he
92
00:07:31.160 --> 00:07:36.160
is placed, but a priori simply in the conception of
93
00:07:36.319 --> 00:07:40.879
pure reason. And although any other precept which is founded
94
00:07:40.920 --> 00:07:46.680
on principles of mere experience may be in certain respects universal,
95
00:07:47.560 --> 00:07:49.839
yet in as far as it rests even in the
96
00:07:49.959 --> 00:07:54.800
least degree on an empirical basis, perhaps only as to
97
00:07:54.879 --> 00:07:59.040
a motive. Such a precept, while it may be a
98
00:07:59.160 --> 00:08:05.040
practical rule, rule, can never be called a moral law. Thus,
99
00:08:05.079 --> 00:08:10.160
not only are moral laws with their principles, essentially distinguished
100
00:08:10.160 --> 00:08:13.839
from every other kind of practical knowledge in which there
101
00:08:13.920 --> 00:08:19.560
is anything empirical, but all moral philosophy rests wholly on
102
00:08:19.720 --> 00:08:24.680
its pure part. When applied to man. It does not
103
00:08:24.879 --> 00:08:29.839
borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself anthropology,
104
00:08:30.399 --> 00:08:35.080
but gives laws a priori to him as a rational being.
105
00:08:36.320 --> 00:08:40.799
No doubt, these laws require a judgment sharpened by experience,
106
00:08:41.600 --> 00:08:44.159
in order on the one hand, to distinguish in what
107
00:08:44.440 --> 00:08:48.559
cases they are applicable, and on the other, to procure
108
00:08:48.639 --> 00:08:52.240
for them access to the will of the man and
109
00:08:52.360 --> 00:08:57.159
effectual influence on conduct. Since man is acted on by
110
00:08:57.240 --> 00:09:01.759
so many inclinations, that though capable of the idea of
111
00:09:01.799 --> 00:09:05.840
a practical pure reason, he is not so easily able
112
00:09:05.879 --> 00:09:11.679
to make it effective in concreto in his life. A
113
00:09:11.720 --> 00:09:17.600
metaphysic of morals is therefore indispensably necessary, not merely for
114
00:09:17.720 --> 00:09:22.039
speculative reasons, in order to investigate the sources of the
115
00:09:22.120 --> 00:09:26.000
practical principles which are to be found a priori in
116
00:09:26.080 --> 00:09:31.240
our reason, but also because morals themselves are liable to
117
00:09:31.320 --> 00:09:35.279
all sorts of corruption as long as we are without
118
00:09:35.440 --> 00:09:40.840
that clue and supreme canon by which to estimate them correctly.
119
00:09:42.120 --> 00:09:44.759
For in order that an action should be morally good,
120
00:09:45.440 --> 00:09:48.840
it is not enough that it conformed to the moral law,
121
00:09:49.639 --> 00:09:52.360
but it must also be done for the sake of
122
00:09:52.440 --> 00:09:57.639
the law. Otherwise that conformity is only very contingent and
123
00:09:57.759 --> 00:10:03.440
uncertain principle, which is not moral. Although it may now
124
00:10:03.440 --> 00:10:08.360
and then produce actions conformable to the law, will also
125
00:10:08.360 --> 00:10:13.919
often produce actions which contradict it. Now, it is only
126
00:10:13.960 --> 00:10:16.799
to a pure philosophy that we can look for the
127
00:10:16.840 --> 00:10:21.320
moral law in its purity and genuineness, and in a
128
00:10:21.399 --> 00:10:26.120
practical matter. This is of the utmost consequence. We must
129
00:10:26.200 --> 00:10:31.759
therefore begin with pure philosophy metaphysic, and without it there
130
00:10:31.759 --> 00:10:37.320
cannot be any moral philosophy at all. That which mingles
131
00:10:37.440 --> 00:10:41.679
these pure principles with the empirical does
not deserve the
132
00:10:41.840 --> 00:10:47.240
name of philosophy. For what distinguishes philosophy from common rational
133
00:10:47.360 --> 00:10:51.639
knowledge is that it treats in separate sciences. What the
134
00:10:51.720 --> 00:10:57.279
latter only comprehends confusedly. Much less does it deserve that
135
00:10:57.360 --> 00:11:02.120
of moral philosophy, since by the confusion it even spoils
136
00:11:02.159 --> 00:11:06.679
the purity of morals themselves and counteracts its own end.
137
00:11:08.159 --> 00:11:11.000
Let it not be thought, however, that what is here
138
00:11:11.080 --> 00:11:15.960
demanded is already extant in the proper dutic prefixed by
139
00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:20.679
the celebrated Wolf to his moral philosophy, namely his so
140
00:11:21.000 --> 00:11:26.399
called general practical philosophy, And that therefore we have not
141
00:11:26.600 --> 00:11:31.639
to strike into an entirely new field. Just because it
142
00:11:31.840 --> 00:11:35.519
was to be a general practical philosophy. It has not
143
00:11:35.679 --> 00:11:40.919
taken into consideration a will of any particular kind, say,
144
00:11:41.000 --> 00:11:45.600
one which should be determined solely from a priori principles,
145
00:11:46.000 --> 00:11:49.759
without any empirical motives, and which we might call a
146
00:11:49.879 --> 00:11:55.679
pure will, but volition in general, with all the actions
147
00:11:55.679 --> 00:12:00.080
and conditions which belong to it. In this general signification.
148
00:12:01.080 --> 00:12:05.720
By this it is distinguished from a metaphysic of morals,
149
00:12:05.799 --> 00:12:09.039
just as general logic, which treats of the acts and
150
00:12:09.240 --> 00:12:14.639
canons of thought in general, is distinguished from transcendental philosophy,
151
00:12:15.200 --> 00:12:19.600
which treats of the particular acts and canons of pure thought,
152
00:12:20.440 --> 00:12:26.120
i e. That whose cognitions are altogether a priori. For
153
00:12:26.159 --> 00:12:29.840
the metaphysic of morals has to examine the idea and
154
00:12:29.919 --> 00:12:34.480
the principles of a possible pure will, and not the
155
00:12:34.519 --> 00:12:39.080
acts and conditions of human volition generally, which for the
156
00:12:39.120 --> 00:12:43.960
most part are drawn from psychology. It is true that
157
00:12:44.159 --> 00:12:48.759
moral laws and duty are spoken of in the general
158
00:12:48.840 --> 00:12:55.039
moral philosophy, contrary indeed to all fitness. But this is
159
00:12:55.120 --> 00:12:59.559
no objection, for in this respect also the authors of
160
00:12:59.600 --> 00:13:03.799
that science remain true to their idea of it. They
161
00:13:03.960 --> 00:13:08.080
do not distinguish the motives which are prescribed as such
162
00:13:08.159 --> 00:13:13.480
by reason alone, altogether a priori, and which are properly moral,
163
00:13:14.279 --> 00:13:19.320
from the empirical motives which the understanding raises to general
164
00:13:19.399 --> 00:13:26.320
conceptions merely by comparison of experiences. But without noticing the
165
00:13:26.360 --> 00:13:30.799
difference of their sources, and looking on them all as homogeneous,
166
00:13:31.360 --> 00:13:36.639
they consider only their greater or lesser amount. It is
167
00:13:36.720 --> 00:13:41.039
in this way they frame their notion of obligation, which,
168
00:13:41.080 --> 00:13:44.519
though anything but moral, is all that can be attained
169
00:13:44.559 --> 00:13:48.440
in a philosophy which passes no judgment at all on
170
00:13:48.519 --> 00:13:53.159
the origin of all possible practical concepts, whether they are
171
00:13:53.279 --> 00:14:00.759
a priori or only a POSTERIORI, intending to publish hereafter
172
00:14:01.120 --> 00:14:05.240
a metaphysic of morals. I issue, in the first instance
173
00:14:05.360 --> 00:14:11.200
these fundamental principles. Indeed, there is properly no other foundation
174
00:14:11.519 --> 00:14:16.480
for it than the critical examination of a pure practical reason,
175
00:14:17.519 --> 00:14:21.200
just as that of metaphysics is the critical examination of
176
00:14:21.240 --> 00:14:27.840
the pure speculative reason already published. But in the first place,
177
00:14:28.440 --> 00:14:32.120
the former is not so absolutely necessary as the latter,
178
00:14:32.679 --> 00:14:36.879
because in moral concerns, human reason can easily be brought
179
00:14:36.919 --> 00:14:41.240
to a high degree of correctness and completeness, even in
180
00:14:41.279 --> 00:14:46.519
the commonest understanding, while on the contrary, in its theoretic
181
00:14:46.679 --> 00:14:52.000
but pure use, it is wholly dialectical. And in the
182
00:14:52.039 --> 00:14:56.480
second place, if the critique of a pure practical reason
183
00:14:56.840 --> 00:15:00.039
is to be complete, it must be possible at the
184
00:14:59.799 --> 00:15:03.799
s same time to show its identity with the speculative
185
00:15:03.879 --> 00:15:08.480
reason in a common principle, or it can ultimately be
186
00:15:08.679 --> 00:15:12.320
only one and the same reason, which has to be
187
00:15:12.360 --> 00:15:18.080
distinguished merely in its application. I could not, however, bring
188
00:15:18.159 --> 00:15:23.080
it to such completeness here without introducing considerations of a
189
00:15:23.159 --> 00:15:27.039
wholly different kind, which would be perplexing to the reader.
190
00:15:28.000 --> 00:15:32.440
On this account I have adopted the title of fundamental
191
00:15:32.639 --> 00:15:37.279
principles of the metaphysic of morals instead of that of
192
00:15:37.360 --> 00:15:43.039
a critical examination of the pure practical reason. But in
193
00:15:43.120 --> 00:15:47.679
the third place, since a metaphysic of morals, in spite
194
00:15:47.720 --> 00:15:52.200
of the discouraging title, is yet capable of being presented
195
00:15:52.279 --> 00:15:57.080
in popular form, and one adapted to the common understanding,
196
00:15:57.840 --> 00:16:01.679
I find it useful to separate from it this preliminary
197
00:16:01.799 --> 00:16:06.120
treatise on its fundamental principles, in order that I may
198
00:16:06.200 --> 00:16:12.039
not hereafter have need to introduce these necessarily subtle discussions
199
00:16:12.200 --> 00:16:16.320
into a book of a more simple character. The present
200
00:16:16.440 --> 00:16:21.159
treatise is, however, nothing more than an investigation and establishment
201
00:16:21.240 --> 00:16:27.039
of the supreme principle of morality, and this alone constitutes
202
00:16:27.080 --> 00:16:30.840
a study complete in itself, and one which ought to
203
00:16:30.879 --> 00:16:36.480
be kept apart from every other moral investigation. No doubt,
204
00:16:36.639 --> 00:16:40.879
my conclusions on this weighty question, which has hitherto been
205
00:16:41.080 --> 00:16:46.720
very unsatisfactorily examined, would receive much light from the application
206
00:16:46.879 --> 00:16:50.840
of the same principle to the whole system, and would
207
00:16:50.879 --> 00:16:55.360
be greatly confirmed by the adequacy which it exhibits throughout.
208
00:16:56.320 --> 00:17:00.000
But I must forego this advantage, which indeed would be
209
00:17:00.200 --> 00:17:06.240
after all more gratifying than useful, since the easy applicability
210
00:17:06.279 --> 00:17:10.880
of a principle and its apparent adequacy give no very
211
00:17:11.079 --> 00:17:16.039
certain proof of its soundness, but rather inspire a certain
212
00:17:16.279 --> 00:17:21.880
partiality which prevents us from examining and estimating it strictly
213
00:17:22.200 --> 00:17:28.319
in itself, and without regard to consequences. I have adopted
214
00:17:28.400 --> 00:17:32.079
in this work the method which I think most suitable,
215
00:17:32.720 --> 00:17:37.400
proceeding analytically from common knowledge to the determination of its
216
00:17:37.559 --> 00:17:44.240
ultimate principle, and again descending synthetically from the examination of
217
00:17:44.319 --> 00:17:48.559
this principle and its sources to the common knowledge in
218
00:17:48.640 --> 00:17:53.319
which we find it employed. The division will therefore be
219
00:17:53.519 --> 00:18:00.720
as follows. One first section transition from the common rational
220
00:18:00.839 --> 00:18:08.160
knowledge of morality to the philosophical two. Second section transition
221
00:18:08.400 --> 00:18:14.680
from popular moral philosophy to the metaphysic of morals. Three
222
00:18:14.960 --> 00:18:20.640
third section, final step from the metaphysic of morals to
223
00:18:20.720 --> 00:18:28.079
the critique of the pure practical reason. End of preface
224
00:18:29.200 --> 00:18:39.119
recording by Martin Geeson in Hazelmere, Surrey,