Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
§3. The Second Passage:§§5–8 of Chapter I of the Analytic
it is our consciousness of the moral law (KP :);
it is the moral law itself (KP :, , );
it is the consciousness of freedom of the will (KP :);
it is autonomy in the principle of morality (KP :);
it is an inevitable determination of the will by the moral law
itself (KP :);
() it is actual cases of actions presupposing unconditional causality (KP :).
The ﬁfth characterization is, I think, of no importance for our question,
and so I ignore it here; the sixth, the phrasing of which seems quite different,
is actually just like () when the whole passage is read, and so I put it under
(). This leaves ()–().
. Now, ()–() are not as different as they look; in fact, they are closely
related. In order to give a consistent reading of Kant’s view, I shall use ().
To explain why, consider §, KP :
The consciousness of this fundamental law may be called a fact of
reason, since one cannot by subtle arguments derive it from already
given data of reason, for example, the consciousness of freedom (for
this is not already given) and because it forces itself upon us as a synthetic a priori proposition based on no pure or empirical intuition,
although it would be analytic if the freedom of the will were presupposed, but for this a positive concept, an intellectual intuition, would
be required, and here we cannot assume it. Yet in order to avoid any
misunderstanding in regarding this law as given, we must note well
that: it [the Moral Law] is not an empirical fact but the sole fact of
pure reason, which announces itself [through that fact] as originating
law (Sic volvo, sic iubeo).1
This crucial passage begins with the ﬁrst speciﬁcation of the fact of reason
and ends with the second. Despite this ambiguity, I follow the ﬁrst characterization. Let’s say:
1. The Latin means “Thus I will, thus I command.”
The fact of reason is the fact that, as reasonable beings, we are conscious of the moral law as the supremely authoritative and regulative
law for us and in our ordinary moral thought and judgment we recognize it as such.
I believe that we can give a coherent account of the fact of reason by using
this formulation. To see this, consider the following points.
First, the moral law as an idea of reason is only an idea, and as such
may lack, as the ideas of immortality and of God may, objective reality,
and so not apply to anything. Thus the moral law cannot itself be the fact
of reason. This excludes ().
Second, the fact of reason cannot be the (direct) consciousness of freedom, since it is a feature of Kant’s transcendental idealism that we have
no intellectual intuition of freedom. This excludes ().
Third, the fact of reason cannot be autonomy in the principle of morality because whether autonomy is meant as the principle of morality itself
(the moral law) (), or as freedom (), () is excluded once we exclude ()
I conclude that the fact of reason is (): our consciousness of the moral
law as supremely authoritative and regulative for us.
. A few observations. First, the doctrine of the fact of reason settles a
question that long bothered Kant: namely, whether our knowledge of the
moral law is rooted in our moral consciousness of this law or in our consciousness of our freedom as reasonable beings. Kant holds that our knowledge of the moral law cannot be based on our consciousness of our freedom. For this would imply that we have an intellectual intuition of freedom,
whereas our intuitions (our experiences of particular objects and processes)
are always subject to the conditions of sensibility. The order of knowledge
is the other way around: the fact of reason, our shared consciousness of
the moral law as supremely authoritative, is the basic fact from which our
moral knowledge and conception of ourselves as free must begin (KP
Further, Kant says that our consciousness of the moral law as supremely
authoritative for us is not an empirical fact but “the sole fact of pure reason.”
To see the signiﬁcance of this, and the central role it gives to the fact of
reason, consider what he says about the concept of freedom in the Preface
The concept of freedom, insofar as its reality is shown by an apodictic
law of practical reason [the fact of reason], is the keystone of the whole
architecture of the system of pure [practical] reason and even of speculative reason. All other concepts (those of God and immortality) which,
as mere ideas, are unsupported by anything in speculative reason, now
attach themselves to the concept of freedom and gain, with it and
through it, existence as objective reality. That is, their possibility is
shown by the fact that there really is freedom, for this [that there really
is freedom] is shown through the moral law.
Plainly, the doctrine of the fact of reason is central, not only to Kant’s
moral philosophy, but to his transcendental idealism as a whole. That the
concept of freedom has objective reality, which is the keystone of the system of speculative as well as of practical reason, depends on the fact of
§. The Third Passage: Appendix I to Analytic I, Paragraphs –
. In this passage Kant says that the moral law can be given no deduction,
that is, no justiﬁcation of its objective and universal validity; instead, it rests
on the fact of reason. He says further that the moral law needs no justifying
grounds; rather, that law proves not only the possibility but also the actuality of freedom in those who recognize and acknowledge that law as supremely authoritative (that is, those of whom the fact of reason holds). The
moral law thus gives objective, although only practical, reality to the idea
of freedom, and thereby answers a need of pure speculative reason, which
had to assume the possibility of freedom to be consistent with itself. That
the moral law does this is sufﬁcient authentication, or credential, as Kant
says, for that law. This credential takes the place of all of those vain attempts to justify it by theoretical reason, whether speculative or empirical
As we have seen, this is a fundamental change from the Groundwork.
Now, what is the signiﬁcance of this change? 2 It signals, I believe, Kant’s
recognition that each of the four forms of reason in his critical philosophy
has a different place and role in what he calls the unity of reason. He thinks
of reason as a self-subsistent unity of principles in which every member
exists for every other, and all for the sake of each (KR Bxxiii; KP :ff.).
In the most general sense, the authentication of a form of reason consists
in explaining its place and role within what I shall call the constitution of
reason as a whole. For Kant, there can be no question of justifying reason
itself. Reason must answer all questions about itself from its own resources
(KR B–), and it must contain the standard for any critical examination
of every use of reason (KP :): the constitution of reason must be selfauthenticating.
Once we regard the authentication3 of a form of reason as explaining
its role within the constitution of reason, then, since the forms of reason
have different roles, we should expect their authentications also to be different. Each ﬁts into the constitution of reason in a different way, and the
more speciﬁc considerations that explain their role in that constitution will
likewise be different. The moral law will not have the same kind of authentication that the categories do, namely, the special kind of argument Kant
gives for them in the Transcendental Deduction of the ﬁrst Critique. This
deduction tries to show the categories to be presupposed in our experience
of objects in space and time, in contrast to their being regulative of the use
of a faculty, in the way that the ideas of reason regulate the use of the
2. On the importance of this change, I agree with much of Karl Ameriks’s valuable discussion
in his Kant’s Theory of Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, ), chap. . He discusses the views
of Beck, Paton, and Henrich, who have tried to preserve the continuity of Kant’s doctrine and have
questioned the fundamental nature of the change.
3. It is important to keep in mind the ambiguity in Kant’s use of the term “deduction.” He
sometimes uses it, as in the third fact of reason passage, to mean the special kind of argument
given to establish the universal validity of the categories in the Transcendental Deduction; at other
times it means simply considerations that sufﬁce to justify, or defend against challenge, our use of
something already in our possession. This broad meaning Kant adopted from the legal terminology
of his day, for which I have used the term “authenticate” instead. On this, see Dieter Henrich,
“Kant’s Notion of a Deduction,” in Kant’s Transcendental Deductions, ed. Eckart Foărster (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, ), pp. .