He is concerned with an individual actor who has both reason and a natural physical body, and what is the essence of a person who is both rational and physical?
So, it's not that facts are unimportant, they are important for us to fulfill our obligations and abandon all conflicting demands for happiness in our lives. There is a certain area where we can pursue our own happiness, even though there can be no definition of pursuing our own happiness. Both are necessary in practice.
Therefore, Kant believed that ancient Greece only recognized the public sphere and did not recognize private individuals. Everyone should, like Socrates, go to the square to discuss world affairs after having breakfast in the morning. However, a problem with modern modernity is that only private individuals are recognized, and everyone lives to earn money to support their families and have children. Both of these are incorrect.
So, German classical philosophy needs to find a third path among these two viewpoints. However, Kant believed that the third way is to emphasize that humans have two sides, and although these two sides should be able to be consistent, he did not tell us how to make them consistent, which is the most difficult problem.
So Kant made it very clear here. We can completely switch between two fields. In one field, we fulfill our obligations, while in the other field, under the premise of abiding by laws and regulations, we can pursue our personal material pursuits. Kant repeatedly emphasized that both are necessary for our human practice.
So, the heavenly principles and human relationships he talked about with Song Ru are slightly different. Of course, in most cases, we also acknowledge the rationality of human desires, because if you don't admit it, you won't be able to continue talking about your responsibility.
The second criticism belongs to the problem, how can these two questions be coordinated with each other?
Kant aimed to solve the problem by introducing a moral "setting". Kant stated that the highest goal of morality is freedom, which dates back to Aristotle, Plato, and all the way to Kant. The highest goal of philosophy is the ultimate good.
The ultimate good requires us to have some basic assumptions. Although moral history overwhelms any individual's demand for happiness, we cannot be expected to completely give up our own happiness as flesh and blood people. Therefore, we must construct a concept of the ultimate good that is higher than pure moral law, but does not make morality belong to anything anymore.
The advantage of the concept of ultimate goodness is that it serves as the foundation of moral law, but it does not harm the unconditional nature of moral law. This is a matter of consistency between virtue and fortune, where good people are rewarded well. Otherwise, people would live too tired, and some would have no hope of survival.
Although Kant believed that the moral law has a strict point for us, completely abandoning our happiness. In this situation, we encounter a problem, but we cannot completely give up our happiness for the sake of morality. As some religions require, Kant believed that in order to solve the problem, we need to construct a concept of the ultimate good, and the pure moral law must be higher.
If happiness is regarded as a virtue, we "should" have a responsibility for this kind of "ultimate good". Assuming we believe in Faust's teachings, if we unconditionally pursue the ultimate good in our actions and strive to create a world with virtue in it.
He also knows that life is difficult, and theoretically it should be like this. Those with virtue should be blessed. Kant even believed in some places that the situation in the world may be the opposite, but we must believe that he can achieve it. Therefore, he proposed here that we need to establish two things for this purpose.
The soul of one thing is immortal.
If you don't believe in the immortality of the soul, you will hope that the "ultimate good" is a goal that requires infinite time to achieve. Immortals of the soul cannot see the ultimate good, and it is necessary to establish the immortality of the soul. This is the setting.
The second is to establish the existence of God.
Only God the Elder can distribute blessings to virtuous people, and in real life, this kind of justice may not always be achieved. Often, bad people receive a lot of blessings, while virtuous people are often unlucky. However, Kant said that the immortality of the soul and the existence of God are both predetermined. Since they are predetermined, what does it mean?
Kant's truth cannot be proven. We must set such things so that we can fulfill the unconditional demands and promises of the moral laws we have created. I must set such things so that God exists and I can fulfill them. The principle is that I designed it myself, and then I must follow it in any situation.
So, Kant said, if you want to achieve this, you must set things, but to be clear, these two things cannot be obtained.
So, Kant's moral law is also, in a sense, something that demands a high standard of human beings. If you have other ideas, you will give up. When I go to these things, what do I want from them? I might as well not set them, not design them well, and push them all the way down.
However, regardless of Kant's setting of him, what is the value of setting arguments?
He clearly demonstrated Kant's general viewpoint, reversing a traditional view that morality is produced by religion, but because of absolute commands, we need to establish the existence of God in morality. It is not religion that produces morality, but morality that produces religion.
From today's perspective, we cannot guarantee the existence of God in the world. What should we do?
Being a good person always requires comfort. What should I do if I am a good person? Kant opposes the pursuit of material interests, which can be seen or touched. In Kant's view, this is a false command, not a definite command. If there are benefits, I will do it. If there are no benefits, there is no need to say anything about it. Since I cannot move, what should I do?
It is said that morality must give rise to religion. But he is strange, it is not a moral requirement, morality cannot be given, the ultimate goal is to be provided by religion. Why does he have authority over moral obligations?
Because he was established by the creator of a purposeful kingdom, not by a command from God outside of human reason, but by us humans. In Kant's view, humans should bear complete responsibility and form the highest moral practice rules.
In accordance with the general principles of that law and acting according to them, he is also able to completely reshape his own rationality, so that they can rely solely on their own free choice of power to act as required by moral laws, which is a fundamental idea of Kant.
Now there is another question, how to explain moral evil in the world?
Kant said that each of us has at least two potential sources of motivation, one is rational knowledge, and the other is various preferences derived from our physical bodies. Each of us has our own specific life plans, all of which can be categorized under concepts. This will pull us in a completely different direction. On the one hand, we have rational facts, and I will set moral laws. I will also obey moral laws. On the other hand, we also have our own life plans and pursuits, which are part of human nature.
What is the moral sin now?
We let morality obey our self love. When it comes to me, I don't care about morality. Anyway, as long as it benefits me, I care about it, which is sin. It refers to the moral law, which motivates him to obey morality and become a person related to his own interests. Why should I obey morality?
He is good to me, but people only become evil when they have a certain will. On the one hand, he strongly desires to do things that make morality obey his self love.
On the other hand, he also lacks sufficient willpower to do what is clearly right. Time is evil, but replacing their own plans with demands on themselves and seeking reasons.
Sometimes we encounter such situations. When I graduate, let's assume that the student I am guiding is not doing well in completing their tasks and cannot graduate. However, he is now telling me that there are many problems in my family and I am facing an upgrade issue. I have already started a family and need to support my family. Can you let me go for a while? After I graduate first, I will come back slowly and make some adjustments for us. At the time of the incident, he naturally knew that issuing a graduation certificate if the thesis was not qualified was actually the same as selling counterfeit goods.
There is another option, I can't do it anymore. I dropped out and don't want my degree because I shouldn't have it. I don't have the ability and it's not what I deserve. There's one more thing, can you make a compromise and let me graduate first so that I can make the necessary changes later.
At this point, we use what we just talked about. He has a plan for self love, but he doesn't have enough will to do the obvious right thing. Instead, he wants to replace him with his own life plan.
So, in Kant's view, one might say, 'Teacher, you're going too far. What should I do?'?
I also admit that I didn't do well. Can you take it slow like I did after graduation. At least Kant would seriously tell his students, 'Go read my book, you don't have enough will to do what you think is right.'. Everyone will think that completing tasks with quality and quantity, without the need for a degree, is the right thing to do with peace of mind.
Falsifying, even though I know I'm not capable, I hope the teacher can forgive me and let me go. It must be that we may say that what the teacher did was a bit inappropriate, but if you don't have enough will to completely let morality sacrifice your interests, this is doing evil, not killing or setting fire, it's actually the same thing.
The question is why do people do this?
Because according to Kant, we are capable of rational knowledge.
Rational knowledge, we humans have the ability to legislate for ourselves, as well as the ability and will, because we are free. Kant said, regardless of whether it is beneficial or not, I will do according to the laws and moral rules I have established for myself, because we have free knowledge and rational knowledge, and we should not be able to do such things.
The problem is that there is often no possibility of unity between the experiential requirements and practices of self love and the belief in a priori freedom. Also, Kant and his elders did not see very clearly that there must be no unity between the two. If they were unified, there would be no problem. If they were not unified, there would be various regrets and tragedies in the world. This is not wrong, it is a rational fact.
