the+critique+of+practical+reason-第7部分
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
supposed to be universally directed to the same objects。
*Propositions which in mathematics or physics are called practical
ought properly to be called technical。 For they For they have
nothing to do with the determination of the theoretical they only
point out how the certain must is to be produced and are； therefore；
just as theoretical as any propositions which express the connection
of a cause with an effect。 Now whoever chooses the effect must also
choose the cause。
Even supposing； however； that all finite rational beings were
thoroughly agreed as to what were the objects of their feelings of
pleasure and pain； and also as to the means which they must employ
to attain the one and avoid the other； still； they could by no means
set up the principle of self…love as a practical law； for this
unanimity itself would be only contingent。 The principle of
determination would still be only subjectively valid and merely
empirical； and would not possess the necessity which is conceived in
every law； namely； an objective necessity arising from a priori
grounds； unless； indeed； we hold this necessity to be not at all
practical； but merely physical； viz。； that our action is as inevitably
determined by our inclination； as yawning when we see others yawn。
It would be better to maintain that there are no practical laws at
all； but only counsels for the service of our desires； than to raise
merely subjective principles to the rank of practical laws； which have
objective necessity； and not merely subjective； and which must be
known by reason a priori； not by experience （however empirically
universal this may be）。 Even the rules of corresponding phenomena
are only called laws of nature （e。g。； the mechanical laws）； when we
either know them really a priori； or （as in the case of chemical laws）
suppose that they would be known a priori from objective grounds if
our insight reached further。 But in the case of merely subjective
practical principles； it is expressly made a condition that they rest；
not on objective； but on subjective conditions of choice； and hence
that they must always be represented as mere maxims； never as
practical laws。 This second remark seems at first sight to be mere
verbal refinement； but it defines the terms of the most important
distinction which can e into consideration in practical
investigations。
IV。 THEOREM II。
A rational being cannot regard his maxims as practical universal
laws； unless he conceives them as principles which determine the will；
not by their matter； but by their form only。
By the matter of a practical principle I mean the object of the
will。 This object is either the determining ground of the will or it
is not。 In the former case the rule of the will is subjected to an
empirical condition （viz。； the relation of the determining idea to the
feeling of pleasure and pain）； consequently it can not be a
practical law。 Now； when we abstract from a law all matter； i。e。；
every object of the will （as a determining principle）； nothing is left
but the mere form of a universal legislation。 Therefore； either a
rational being cannot conceive his subjective practical principles；
that is； his maxims； as being at the same time universal laws； or he
must suppose that their mere form； by which they are fitted for
universal legislation； is alone what makes them practical laws。
REMARK。
The monest understanding can distinguish without instruction what
form of maxim is adapted for universal legislation； and what is not。
Suppose； for example； that I have made it my maxim to increase my
fortune by every safe means。 Now； I have a deposit in my hands； the
owner of which is dead and has left no writing about it。 This is
just the case for my maxim。 I desire then to know whether that maxim
can also bold good as a universal practical law。 I apply it；
therefore； to the present case； and ask whether it could take the form
of a law； and consequently whether I can by my maxim at the same
time give such a law as this； that everyone may deny a deposit of
which no one can produce a proof。 I at once bee aware that such a
principle； viewed as a law； would annihilate itself； because the
result would be that there would be no deposits。 A practical law which
I recognise as such must be qualified for universal legislation；
this is an identical proposition and； therefore； self…evident。 Now； if
I say that my will is subject to a practical law； I cannot adduce my
inclination （e。g。； in the present case my avarice） as a principle of
determination fitted to be a universal practical law； for this is so
far from being fitted for a universal legislation that； if put in
the form of a universal law； it would destroy itself。
It is； therefore； surprising that intelligent men could have thought
of calling the desire of happiness a universal practical law on the
ground that the desire is universal； and； therefore； also the maxim by
which everyone makes this desire determine his will。 For whereas in
other cases a universal law of nature makes everything harmonious；
here； on the contrary； if we attribute to the maxim the universality
of a law； the extreme opposite of harmony will follow； the greatest
opposition and the plete destruction of the maxim itself and its
purpose。 For； in that case； the will of all has not one and the same
object； but everyone has his own （his private welfare）； which may
accidentally accord with the purposes of others which are equally
selfish； but it is far from sufficing for a law； because the
occasional exceptions which one is permitted to make are endless；
and cannot be definitely embraced in one universal rule。 In this
manner； then； results a harmony like that which a certain satirical
poem depicts as existing between a married couple bent on going to
ruin； 〃O； marvellous harmony； what he wishes； she wishes also〃； or
like what is said of the pledge of Francis I to the Emperor Charles V；
〃What my brother Charles wishes that I wish also〃 （viz。； Milan）。
Empirical principles of determination are not fit for any universal
external legislation； but just as little for internal； for each man
makes his own subject the foundation of his inclination； and in the
same subject sometimes one inclination； sometimes another； has the
preponderance。 To discover a law which would govern them all under
this condition； namely； bringing them all into harmony； is quite
impossible。
V。 PROBLEM I。
Supposing that the mere legislative form of maxims is alone the
sufficient determining principle of a will； to find the nature of
the will which can be determined by it alone。
Since the bare form of the law can only be conceived by reason； and
is； therefore； not an object of the senses； and consequently does
not belong to the class of phenomena； it follows that the idea of
it； which determines the will； is distinct from all the principles
that determine events in nature according to the law of causality；
because in their case the determining principles must themselves be
phenomena。 Now； if no other determining principle can serve as a law
for the will except that universal legislative form； such a will
must be conceived as quite independent of the natural law of phenomena
in their mutual relation； namely； the law of causality； such
independence is called freedom in the strictest； that is； in the
transcendental； sense； consequently； a will which can have its law
in nothing but the mere legislative form of the maxim is a free will。
VI。 PROBLEM II。
Supposing that a will is free； to find the law which alone is
petent to determine it necessarily。
Since the matter of the practical law； i。e。； an object of the maxim；
can never be given otherwise than empirically； and the free will is
independent on empirical conditions （that is； conditions belonging
to the world of sense） and yet is determinable； consequently a free
will must find its principle of determination in the law； and yet
independently of the matter of the law。 But； besides the matter of the
law； nothing is contained in it except the legislative form。 It is the
leg
