At least he punishes evil and promotes good, which can also make people afraid. It's not just about causing trouble, but also about the universe ultimately having a creator of an ultimate order. As an explanation, let's see how Kant answers me now?
Firstly, Kant's own reflection on religion is closely related to a question in his moral philosophy. The question is why, as a special actor, we are likely to be driven by many constraints of freedom and self-discipline. To be clear, why would a person willingly be driven by the demands of freedom and self-discipline?
Because freedom and self-discipline mean that there are many things we humans cannot do, this cannot be done, and that cannot be done. Why?
We are free, we are self disciplined, and we have set many rules and moral standards for ourselves. Kant, the question he wants to discuss is that theoretically, people should do whatever they want. It seems to be human nature, why do people want to constrain their freedom and self-discipline?
To solve problems, a fundamental idea of Kant's moral philosophy is that humans must serve freedom, not for anything else. I have done so many good deeds, and in the future I can rely on all moral models, not for, not for anything else, because fulfilling moral obligations for any other non moral reason will inevitably lead to the unconditional cancellation of moral obligations, but as Kant repeatedly emphasized from the beginning, moral obligations are unconditional.
So, he is a definite command, not a false command. If we cancel the unconditional moral obligation, he will definitely become a conditional thing governed by interests and desires. According to Kant's understanding of our human moral experience, when we truly understand something as our moral obligation, we are only driven by the normative power of the moral obligation itself.
Instead of saying, 'I won't go here even if my mother is in the hospital,' it's my moral obligation. Because what drives us behind it is the power of norms, not the opinions of others, social public opinion, or anything else. It is clear that in morality, we cannot say that we have any experiential interest, nor can we do something out of experiential interest. What kind of interest or motivation should we have?
I think Kant's answer to the question is a bit far fetched. He later talked about why the moral law cannot kill, cannot steal, and cannot lie. Why does such a moral law have unconditional requirements for us? He said, 'Don't ask anything about it.'.
He said this is a rational fact, so don't wait any longer. Rational people are like this. In other words, what is a rational fact?
Just like how we all breathe, this is a physiological fact. Don't ask anymore, why?
The fact of reason is that we humans are first and foremost rational agents of ourselves, and we recognize this. If we do not recognize this, we are free and rational agents. Kant said that we have no right to say that we are free, and in this sense, we are a natural being. The rational fact means that reason has a demand on us. And the requirement of reason is that we make him have requirements for us. In the past, God had requirements for me, and the country had requirements for me. For example, in the public sphere and society, there are requirements for you. The requirement of reason is that I make these requirements become requirements for me, and at the same time, I must or must make myself obey these requirements. This is what is called unconditional.
Furthermore, as a fact of self legislation, we cannot derive it from any other more fundamental metaphysical facts about the world, from the laws of heaven, from the so-called rational facts prescribed by heaven. We cannot continue to derive that there is another thing, we cannot. Because the rational fact here is that our most extreme would be to say the ultimate non regenerative spontaneity itself, and spontaneity is also equivalent to another version of free will in Kant's view, which is called self-discipline.
It is spontaneity itself, and Kant also said the opposite, denying facts is actually impossible because such denial would negate his factual legislation. We cannot deny this, so the concept of rational facts ultimately boils down to, in my opinion, repeating the authority of morality itself.
However, this proposal is somewhat paradoxical, as it seems to require an incapable actor to give himself a law based on the law. What does an incapable actor mean?
Because logically speaking, he had to legislate for himself at the beginning, and logically speaking, he would only legislate for himself when he couldn't. If there were already laws, there would be no need to legislate for himself, at least logically speaking. Logically, it can be like this, Fichte.
Why should I legislate first? Because as we discussed today, the National People's Congress needs to legislate, and the parliament needs to legislate because there is no law to legislate. If there is a law, why legislate? There is a paradox here. An actor who cannot act on the basis of the law also gives himself a law. From another perspective, those laws seem to be derived from the legislation itself, which is a paradox.
So, later Hegel felt that it was still not possible to solve the problem of the origin of morality in this way. Why did Hegel later consider his current worldview as truth? Because if you must say self legislation, at least we will not say anything else. If we do not judge Kant from experience, it is a bit flawed logically. So Hegel would feel that if you have a self paradox, your theory cannot hold up.
Why do paradoxes exist?
It's because Kant himself demanded it, and I don't think he completely freed himself from the constraints of causal thinking. Later, it made sense for Hale to vigorously oppose the bad infinity and explore the lessons of predecessors. You see, Kant's thinking is like this. If I want to give myself a principle, a moral law, assuming that I must have a reason to do so, I won't say that waking up is okay. Then, you and I make laws for ourselves, and legislation must have a reason. This is Kant, as a rationalist, he must say that I always have a reason, but if there is a reason to adopt a principle first, is it given by myself or someone else? The sentence is:?
Obviously, we cannot give it ourselves. If we give it ourselves, it is no longer a reason. However, for Kant, we cannot do without giving reasons ourselves, because we have already excluded any external factors and can have legal constraints on us. Besides being in the public domain, the work domain is an extension of the private domain, which is another issue.
So, in order for the moral law to constrain me, he must be self giving. It's not something that can't be done, so it expresses a rational fact. Kant's paradox assumes that in practice, we cannot deny that all rational people would do the same, but from a theoretical perspective, reason is unprovable.
He has his own problems, and in the end, Hegel talked about them. In fact, if you want to go on in such an intellectual causal way, it will definitely lead to infinite bad, while Kant said it won't. I have already explained that the causality of freedom and the causality of nature are two different things. The causality of freedom ultimately has an endpoint, and I will start from here. Hegel said that you cannot understand it because causality itself is a way of thinking adopted by intellectual thinking. How can you talk to yourself and say that I have reached this point and I will give it a deadline, it cannot be stopped.
Others may ask you, 'How did you come to be here?' Kant also had a deadline for rational facts, but this deadline itself is weak, weak in theory. This is Kant's question. If not, his moral philosophy would not be questioned by many people today. Indeed, he has some theoretical problems. On the one hand, he has made many great contributions, but we also need to see that he has weaknesses in theory.
Therefore, some people may say that without God, what are the benefits of being a moral person? If bad people keep doing well in the world and good people are unlucky, why should I be a virtuous person?
Kant's answer is that if you die this heart, strictly speaking, becoming a moral actor, there is no benefit and no possibility of it. Let me make it clear to you, if you die this heart first, don't say there's any benefit to admitting it. I'll just tell you there's no benefit. That's not good, why do we still have to do it?
Kant's answer is that because we are rational caretakers and moral actors, we experience the call of moral obligation through such actions, and this experience proves our virtue. Therefore, I am willing to do so. In the end, although he did not say what Confucius said about 'I desire benevolence to the utmost', it was actually because it was something I was willing to do.
Out of my free will. Don't ask me why people still want to be good people, don't ask me, you have lost your heart, it's not beneficial. This is very impressive, of course, he later made another one, which is moral philosophy. In the end, when it comes to his idea of the unity of virtue and fortune, but the unity of virtue and fortune also means that good people should have good rewards. His morality has always been an ideal, which is very clear. In real life, you should not look for him anymore. This is an ideal, just like the content of life, which is fundamentally constantly improving.
People are constantly moving upwards, but as a concrete individual with experience, it is absolutely possible for them to become worse and worse, as Kant clearly stated in his later works on historical philosophy. So, Kant is in it, no matter what moral significance we have, he himself must have been summoned by a moral obligation. Interests and benefits, in any case, cannot come before the call of moral obligations, and it is still an unconditional obligation to emphasize moral obligations.
However, as Kant himself has done countless times, Kant is not foolish, nor is Kant confused. Of course, we humans are not only rational, but we also have physical actors.
We should not and cannot demand that everyone become an angel. Why?
Because we have an animalistic side, Kant said, we cannot expect to give up all the demands for happiness in the natural world. If anyone can expect happiness by giving up this materialistic desire in the real world, it is foolish. It's impossible, why?
Our physical nature, like our rationality, is also a fundamental fact and an experiential fact that you cannot deny. And Kant believed that we humans have desires and bodies, which is not a random, morally unimportant fact about us. This is an important fact just like rationality, why is it important?
