So, Kant believed that if we do not acknowledge this, it is very likely that we will truly become moral nothingness, with no morality, so should we follow logic?
If the logical deduction is correct, we will follow that. So, Kant is at the local level, and morality cannot be if, morality must have an absolute authority. Why is it said that his command, in Kant's terms, must have some universality.
In fact, the universality here, if we talk about universality in theoretical rationality, refers to the universal validity of a law or proposition, the universal validity in the empirical world, and in moral philosophy, universality is the universal constraint on all of us.
So, this universal concept is not exactly the same in the moral field as it is in the natural field. It has universal constraints in the local context. You cannot say that my situation is particularly special, and that moral rules do not work or have exceptions for me, which Kant will never recognize; On the contrary, he always emphasized moral laws and regulations, and he must be able to constrain rational actions. Rational people, those who obey reason, no matter what special purposes they have. I want to support my family, whatever I want, no matter what special purposes they have.
He should be effective and able to restrain all rational actors. What impressed us the most in all moral aspects is his persistent emphasis on this point. It doesn't matter to us, social status, lifestyle, life interests, personal tendencies, and life plans can vary greatly. However, there should be no exceptions in this regard. As long as you acknowledge that I am a rational and free person, you should acknowledge this.
Of course, if you don't admit it, there's nothing I can do about it. You've encountered some guys, and I don't even acknowledge the existence of reason in the world. I myself am free and believe that humans are a product of necessity. Of course, if you are like this, as we see today, I have no choice. Society is like this, times are like this, and the surrounding environment is like this. What can I do.
It is the so-called determinism, which we have seen in history, especially in modern times for hundreds of years, has never disappeared, and at a certain point, determinism will become the majority.
For example, when we take the college entrance examination, or when our parents design majors for us, including when we plan our future lives, we are more likely to be constrained by the way people think.
Society is like this, if I don't follow along, I can't do it. Then you forget one thing. Of course, they don't admit it. Kant would say this is strange, because in his eyes, there is nothing more absurd in the world than a person not admitting that they are free.
He felt that this was the most absurd thing in the world, and he could never understand why someone would say that I am not free and that people are not free. He thought it was too strange.
Kant has a very classic expression for the categorical imperative, and it seems that these two expressions are very classic, almost all those who talk about Kant's moral philosophy do not ignore them. Why? This mainly refers to absolute commands. The concept is too important, but in fact, these two discussions discuss what absolute commands are and what they can be called absolute commands.
It is the principle of your actions, and at the same time, you are willing for it to become a universal law. You act according to that principle, and such a principle becomes a law.
I have said before that principles are the way of each of us, but there is a way of being a person, and even thieves have their own way. However, that cannot become a universal law. Why can't it become a universal law?
Because no one wants their own belongings to be stolen, if everyone should steal someone else's belongings, I'm sorry, thieves themselves are not safe either. However, everyone should not betray their loved ones, which can become a moral principle, because I don't think anyone in the world wants their loved ones to betray me and lie to me. This is impossible, Kant. Don't see absolute commands as the Emperor in heaven. That thing is very ordinary, that is, we have a way of doing things because everyone has their own way.
However, some "ways of being human" are not on the table, or can only be followed privately. But some "ways of being human" will be recognized by all of us, at least in our Chinese eyes, "filial piety". Because I will also become a parent, I don't want my son to be unjust to me in the future. When I need him, I'm sorry if you go find someone else. I don't care anymore.
So, your code of conduct should become a universal natural law through your will, and what does natural law mean?
It's just that there were no accidents. There can be no exceptions, that's how it should be, that's how it should be.
Kant gave an example to illustrate his meaning. We don't have much money now, so he wants to make money by borrowing from others. But when he knew he was borrowing money, he made up his mind that I wouldn't repay it. However, he also realized that if he didn't pretend to promise to repay you later, don't worry, he wouldn't be able to get the money.
So, he must make a promise, even if it's a false promise. If someone wants to borrow money but doesn't intend to repay it, he knows that if he really tells others that he doesn't intend to repay the money, he will definitely not be able to borrow it. When borrowing money, he knows that I won't repay it, but he can make a false promise to you that he will repay the money when the time comes. Don't worry.
We can assume that we have done this thing, there are such people in the world, and this is their principle.
Tell lies and make a false promise in order to get money. He will definitely repay the money when the time comes. This is his principle, but obviously, can such a principle become a universal principle?
I can't. If Kant analyzes it this way, if a principle of deceiving money through false promises can become a moral law like natural law, then no one in the world will believe in promises anymore. In a world where no one believes in promises, the principles of such promises become invalid.
Because no one will believe in promises, even if you make false promises, they are useless. Even if you don't do so, your standards can become rules, and as a standard, it is difficult for you to continue. Because if everyone in the world makes promises without intending to fulfill them, no one will believe in promises in such a world.
Therefore, using this approach to be a good person won't work anymore, because no one believes in it. In a world where no one believes in promises, how can you borrow money through your so-called promise to repay money on time? Kant said, "Don't say he can't be a rule, he can't even follow the rules. He can only succeed once at most.
However, if we assume that he has become a rule, in such a meeting, not to mention the rule, he is not even qualified as a criterion, because he cannot be a criterion, you cannot do it. Another example is a person who never ignores the help of others.
That's how people think. Why don't I help them? I have nothing to ask for from them. This is what modern people think. What is popular in our society now is that helping others is always profitable.
He will receive rewards, but if I don't help him, let's assume we have someone who craves help from others. Their thoughts, in their situation, I don't even have the motivation to help, so we have no interest in helping them. Kant said, 'Well, if you don't help others, your heart is like an iron stone and you turn a blind eye to their requests for help. Can this become a rule?'?
Because we believe that helping and caring for others should be the norm, and it is a legal argument. Assuming that we are all asking for help from others, he said it is possible, but of course it is not possible. Why?
Because there is always something in the world, and I don't need anyone else's help. When I need help, if my code of conduct becomes a rule, I cannot rely on others' help because it is my own rule to not help others and ignore their needs. I'm sorry, I cannot find help from others when I need it.
That's obvious, just like those who borrow money but don't repay it, ignoring others' requests for help, not only can't it become a rule, but it's also difficult to continue as a guideline, because if you want to be a guideline, you can conclude that there are still people in the world who need help, and there are also people who will ask to help others; And if everyone in the world is cold and indifferent to others, no matter what you say, I won't help you. Then, there's no need for you to do this, and your standards are also unnecessary.
So, Kant used these two examples to illustrate that no matter what principles we humans have, the principles themselves must still exist and conform to objective laws. Through these two examples, if they do not conform to objective laws and are opposite to objective laws, they will have problems as principles themselves and may be difficult to sustain.
What is moral law?
Kant has already said that moral laws are things that have universal binding force on us, which is called moral laws. No matter our social identity, status, personal interests, or individual destiny, they are all very different.
However, Kant's moral philosophy does not consider some so-called individuality or special things. What I need to consider is that it is applicable to all people.
Let me give you an example. Similar to some axioms about triangles in geometry, whether this triangle is a pyramid or a piece of stone in another triangle, it is still a triangle and valid. It doesn't even consider your specific situation, and it is unconditional.
We cannot say that I am doing this because he is useful to me, or because he can satisfy me, or because he can make me happy. If we think like this, it becomes a false command, and false statements cannot become moral principles. The unconditional nature of moral laws is linked to a characteristic of our actions of 'being human'.
