哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's the right thing to do 07

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's the right thing to do(公正-该如何是好)课堂讲稿,共12部分

Justice 07 A Lesson in Lying / A Deal is a Deal

Funding for this program is provided by Additional funding provided by Last time we began trying to we began by trying to navigate our way through Kant's moral theory. Now, fully to make sense of Kant moral theory in the groundwork requires that we be able to answer three questions. How can duty and autonomy go together? What's the great dignity in answering to duty? It would seem that these two ideas are opposed duty and autonomy. What's Kant's answer to that? Need someone here to speak up on Kant's behalf. Does he have an answer? Yes, go ahead, stand up. Kant believes you the only act autonomously when you are pursuing something only the name of duty and not because of your own circumstances such as ®C like you're only doing something good and moral if you're doing it because of duty and not because something of your own personal gain. Now why is that acting°≠ what's your name? My name is Matt. Matt, why is that acting on a freedom? I hear what you're saying about duty? Because you choose to accept those moral laws in yourself and not brought on from outside upon onto you. Okay, good. Because acting out of duty ®C Yeah.- is following a moral law That you impose on yourself. That you impose on yourself. That's what makes duty compatible with freedom.- Yeah. Okay, that's good Matt. That is Kant's answer. That's great. Thank you. So, Kant's answer is it is not in so far as I am subject to the law that I have dignity but rather in so far as with regard to that very same law, I'm the author and I am subordinated to that law on that ground that I took it as much as at I took it upon myself. I willed that law.

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's the right thing to do(公正-该如何是好)课堂讲稿,共12部分

So that's why for Kant acting according to duty and acting freely in the sense of autonomously are one and the same. But that raises the question, how many moral laws are there? Because if dignity consists and be governed by a law that I give myself, what's to guarantee that my conscience will be the same as your conscience? Who has Kant's answer to that? Yes? Because a moral law trend is not contingent upon seductive conditions. It would transcend all particular differences between people and so would be a universal law and in this respect there'd only be one moral law because it would be supreme. Right. That's exactly right. What's your name? Kelly. Kelly. So Kelly, Kant believes that if we choose freely out of our own consciences, the moral law we're guarantee to come up with one and the same moral law. -Yes. And that's because when I choose it's not me, Michael Sandel choosing. It's not you, Kelly choosing for yourself? What is it exactly? Who is doing the choosing? Who's the subject? Who is the agent? Who is doing the choosing? Reason? - Well reason°≠ Pure reason. Pure reason and what you mean by pure reason is what exactly? Well pure reason is like we were saying before not subject to any external conditions that may be imposed on that side. Good that's' great. So, the reason that does the willing, the reason that governs my will when I will the moral law is the same reason that operates when you choose the moral law for yourself and that's why it's possible to act autonomously to choose for myself, for each of us to choose for ourselves as autonomous beings and for all of us to wind up willing the same moral law, the categorical imperative. But then there is one big and very difficult question left even if you accept everything that Matt and Kelly had said so far. How is a categorical imperative possible? How is morality possible?

哈佛大学公开课Justice-What's the right thing to do(公正-该如何是好)课堂讲稿,共12部分

To answer that question, Kant said we need to make a distinction. We need to make a distinction between two standpoints, two standpoints from which we can make sense of our experience. Let me try to explain what he means by these two standpoints. As an object of experience, I belong to the sensible world. There my actions are determined by the laws of nature and by the regularities of cause and effect. But as a subject of experience, I inhabit an intelligible world here being independent of the laws of nature I am capable of autonomy, capable of acting according to a law I give myself. Now Kant says that, "Only from this second standpoint can I regard myself as free for to be independent of determination by causes in the sensible world is to be free." If I were holy and empirical being as the utilitarian assume, if I were a being holy and only subject to the deliverances of my senses, to pain and pleasure and hunger and thirst and appetite, if that's all there were to humanity, we wouldn't be capable of freedom, Kant reasons because in that case every exercise of will would be conditioned by the desire for some object. In that case all choice would be heteronomous choice governed by the pursued of some external end."When we think of ourselves as free," Kant writes, "we transfer ourselves into the intelligible world as members and recognize the autonomy of the will." That's the idea of the two standpoints. So how are categorical imperatives possible? Only because the idea of freedom makes me a member of an intelligible world? Now Kant admits we aren't only rational beings. We don't only inhabit the intelligible world, the realm of freedom. If we did -- if we did, then all of our actions would invariably accord with the autonomy of the will. But precisely because we inhabit simultaneously the two standpoints, the two realms, the realm of freedom and the realm of necessity precisely because we inhabit both realms there is always …… 此处隐藏：31978字，全部文档内容请下载后查看。喜欢就下载吧 ……