Chapter IV: Metaphysical Ethics.
§ 74.
That such a
reduction of all propositions to the type of those which assert either
that something exists or that something which exists has a certain attribute
(which means, that both exist in a certain relation to one another), is
erroneous, may easily be seen by reference to the particular class of ethical
propositions. For whatever we may have proved to exist, and whatever two
existents we may have proved to be necessarily connected with one another, it
still remains a distinct and different question whether what thus exists is
good; whether either or both of the two existents is so; and whether it is good
that they should exist together. To assert the one is plainly and obviously
not the same thing as to assert the other. We understand what we mean
by asking: Is this, which exists, or necessarily exists, after all, good? and we
perceive that we are asking a question which has not been answered. In
the face of this direct perception that the two questions are distinct, no proof
that they must be identical can have the slightest value. That the proposition This is good
is thus distinct from
every other proposition was proved in Chapter I; and I may now illustrate
this fact by pointing out how it is distinguished from two particular
propositions with which it has commonly been identified. That so and so
ought to be done is commonly called a moral law; and this
phrase naturally suggests that the proposition is in some way analogous either
to a natural law, or to a law in the legal sense, or to both. All three are, in
fact, really analogous in one respect, and in one respect only: that they
include a proposition which is universal. A moral law asserts This
is good in all cases
; a natural law asserts This happens in
all cases
; and a law, in the legal sense, It is commanded that this
be done, or left undone, in all cases.
But since it is very natural
to suppose that the analogy extends further, and that the assertion This is
good in all cases
is equivalent to the assertion This happens in all
cases
or to the assertion It is commanded htat this be done in all
cases,
it may be useful briefly to point out that they are not
equivalent. (§ 74 ¶ 1)
§ 75.
The fallacy of
supposing moral law to be analogous to natural law in respect of asserting that
some action is one which is always necessarily done is contained in one of the
most famous doctrines of Kant. Kant identifies what ought to be with the law
according to which a Free or Pure Will must act—with the only kind of
action which is possible for it. And by this identification he does not mean
merely to assert that Free Will is also under the necessity of doing
what it ought; he means that what it ought to do means nothing but its
own law—the law according to which it must act. It differs from the human will
just in that, what we ought to do, is what it necessarily
does. It is autonomous
; and by this is meant (among other things) that
there is no separate standard by which it can be judged: that the question Is
the law by which this Will acts a good one?
is, in its case, meaningless. It
follows that what is necessarily willed by this Pure Will is good, not
because that Will is good, nor for any other reason; but merely because
it is what is necessarily willed by a Pure Will. (§ 75 ¶ 1)
Kant's assertion of the Autonomy of the Practical Reason
thus has the very opposite effect to that which he desired; it makes his Ethics
ultimately and hopelessly heteronomous.
His Moral Law is
independent
of Metaphysics only in the sense that according to him we can
knnow it independently; he holds that we can only infer that there is
Freedom, from the fact that the Moral Law is true. And so far as he keeps
strictly to this view, he does avoid the error, into which most metaphysical
writers fall, of allowing his opinions as to what is real to influence his
judgments of what is good. But he fails to see that on his view the Moral Law is
dependent upon Freedom in a far more important sense than that in which Freedom
depends on the Moral Law. He admits that Freedom is the ratio essendi of the Moral Law, whereas the latter is only
the ratio cognoscendi of Freedom. And this means
that, unless Reality be such as he says, no assertion that This is good
can possibly be true: it can indeed have no meaning. He has, therefore,
furnished his opponents with a conclusive method of attacking the validity of
the Moral Law. If they can only shew by some other means (which he denies to be
possible but leaves theoretically open) that the nature of Reality is not such
as he says, he cannot deny that they will have proved his ethical principle to
be false. If what This ought be done
means This is willed by
a Free Will,
then, if it can be shewn that there is no Free Will which wills
anything, it will follow that nothing ought to be done. (§ 75 ¶ 2)
§ 76.
And Kant also
commits the fallacy of supposing that This ought to be
means This is
commanded.
He conceives the Moral Law to be an Imperative. And this is a
very common mistake. This ought to be,
it is assumed, must mean This
is commanded
; nothing, therefore, would be good unless it were commanded;
and since commands in this world are liable to be erroneous, what ought to be in
its ultimate sense means what is commanded by some real supersensible
authority.
With regard to this authority it is, then, no longer possible to
ask Is it righteous?
Its commands cannot fail to be right, because to be
right means to be what it commands. Here, therefore, law, in the moral sense, is
supposed to be analogous to law, in the legal sense, rather than, as in the last
instance, to law in the natural sense. It is supposed that moral obligation is
analogous to legal obligation, with this difference only that whereas the source
of legal obligation is earthly, that of moral obligation is heavenly. Yet it is
obvious that if by a source of obligation is meant only a power which binds you
or compels you to do a thing, it is not because it does do this that you ought
to obey it. It is only if it be itself so good, that it commands and enforces
only what is good, that it can be a source of moral obligation. And in that case
what it commands and enforces would be good, whether commanded and enforced or
not. Just that which makes an obligation legal, namely the fact that it is
commanded by a certain kind of authority, is entirely irrelevant to moral
obligation. However an authority be defined, its commands will be
morally binding only if they are—morally binding; only if they tell us
what ought to be or what is a means to that which ought to be. (§ 76 ¶ 1)