provisions" containing a general definition
moral will, Kant divided into “maxims”
and "laws". Maxima, in Kant's understanding, is
"subjective principle of volition", significant for the will
given individual person, and the law is an “objective
ny" - in the sense of universal validity - the principle of volition -
power, having power over the will of every rational being
society. Kant calls this law an “imperative”
explaining that the imperative is “a rule that
characterized by an obligation expressing
objective compulsion to act...". Imperatives,
in turn, are divided by Kant into “hypothetical”,
the execution of which is associated with the presence of a certain
conditions, and “categorical” ones, which are obligatory
are valid under all conditions and, therefore, have the force of
depending on any conditions. Kant further
clarifies that “there is only one categorical
imperative" as the highest law of morality.
"Categorical imperative". Installation on stand-alone
mission of moral will, which demanded exclusion from
her motivations for everything “heteronomous” led to the fact that
the categorical imperative also had to determine
to be committed only to moral “conformity with the law.”
“This means: I should always act only this way,
so that I can also wish for the transformation of my poppy
sims into the universal law." In the final form, the formula
modification of the categorical imperative, modified
and honed, says: “Act in such a way that
the simulacrum of your will could at the same time have force
the principle of universal legislation." Absence
indications of which maxims are capable of
act as principles of universal moral
“legislation”, Kant considered not a disadvantage,
and the great advantage of the above formulation is,
indicating that the categorical imperative
is, as it should be, a “pure” an-
prior law and does not include anything “empirical”
ric." Such “purity” meant, according to Kant,
that the categorical imperative determines - accordingly -
with the requirements of apriority - only a form of power
actions, but says nothing about their content
zhaniya. Kant was convinced that “if rational
79
a being must think of its maxims as
practical universal laws, then it can think
imagine them only as principles that contain
in itself the determining basis of the will not according to matter,
but only in form" (39. 4/1. 331, 332, 260, 238, 347,
342). Thus, Kant’s understanding of the category
ical imperative is deliberately presented as
formalistic. Formalism - along with a priori-
mom and anti-eudaimonic rigorism is one of
the main essential features of Kant's understanding
moral law.
But consistently carry out Kant’s formalism
he failed in developing his ethical concept.
Certain and, moreover, important content
is present even in the considered formulations of the category
ric imperative. They firstly include
includes the idea of the value primacy of the common in relation to
to the individual, which means denial
the possibilities of ethical individualism and pluralism
ma, inevitably leading to the relativization of moral
normal Secondly, they assume moral
equality of people who are all equally
are subject to a single moral law, from the point of view
whose actions are worthy of condemnation by anyone
claims to consider oneself not bound by moral
mi norms in relations with “subordinates”. These co-
holding implications of the first formulations of the ka-
tegorical imperative found a clear expression
tion in its subsequent formulations, which
were introduced by Kant in each of his ethical writings -
ny. Expressed in the categorical imperative, the statute
new focus on “legal conformity” of maxims of will always
complemented by Kant's concept of “practical
reason" by insisting on the obligation to act
"so that you always treat humanity and
in your own person, and in the person of every other person as well as to the whole
whether and would never treat him only as
to the means" (39.4/1.270). In this formulation the cata-
goric imperative, emphasizing the need
the ability to treat all people without distinction as
to self-valuable individuals, had its own implicit
content, which consisted in the statement
the principle of social equality.
The named principle had an anti-feudal direction.
interest and expressed the interests primarily of the German-
80
th burghers. The fact that Kant gave this expression
niyu abstract-ethical form, corresponded,
as K. Marx and F. Engels explained, “powerlessness,
oppression and squalor of the German burghers..."
The founders of Marxism pointed out that the state
the formation of the German bourgeoisie at the end of the 18th century. clearly “reflects”
in Kant's Critique of Practical Reason:
in contrast to the economically dominant English
bourgeoisie and gaining political dominance
French bourgeoisie "powerless German bureaucrats"
the heroes only reached " goodwill", "even if she
remains completely ineffective...” (1.3.182).
A set of moral duties. In "Metafi-
"Zike of Morals" Kant considered it necessary to detail
and very thoroughly characterize the complex
the main moral duties of man, which means
the beginning of an actual departure from its previous simplified
there is a strong opinion that “even the most ordinary mind
without any indication can decide which form of poppy
Sims is suitable for universal legislation and ka-
there is no way” (39. 4/1. 342). Starting with the enumeration of the obligations
steadiness “in relation to oneself”, Kant put on
the first place is a person’s duty to take care of preserving
your life and, accordingly, your health. Suicide-
and all kinds of undermining by a person of his health
drinking, including through drunkenness and gluttony,
Kant classified them as vices. Kant further called goodness
representatives of truthfulness, honesty, sincerity, goodness
fame, self-esteem, which are contrary
illustrated the vices of lies and servility, and here
a progressive social trend was again revealed
correctness of Kantian ethical views. From debt
ha "regarding the dignity of humanity in us"
followed, according to Kant, such socially important prescriptions
sania: “Don’t become a man’s slave,” “...don’t
let others trample on your rights with impunity
mi", "...genuflection and servility to
a person is unworthy of a person in all cases.” Important
Kant attached the greatest importance to the presence and functionality
developing a person's conscience as necessary for
morality of the “internal judgment seat”. To the decrees
duty Kant attributed “moral self-knowledge, striving
tending to penetrate into difficult-to-measure depths
(the abyss) of the heart." It is worth noting that the opposite
Kant considered man’s “duty to himself”
81
tendency to destroy the beautiful in the inanimate
and living nature, especially that which is expressed
in cruelty to animals. Included in debt
person in front of himself was included "development
(cultura) of their natural powers (spiritual, mental
and bodily)..." (39. 4/2. 375, 380, 384).
The two main responsibilities of people in relation to
Kant believed in love and respect for each other. This
he interpreted love as benevolence that generates
beneficence, charity not related to calculation
for any benefit for yourself. Determining favor
tion as “pleasure from the happiness (well-being) of others”
gih,” Kant pointed out that “the duty of every person is
to do charity, i.e. to help as much as possible
people and contribute to their happiness, without hoping for
give some kind of reward for this." The only
new, but necessary “compensation” for the good deed
is gratitude on the part of the one to whom it is
was rendered - this is a “sacred duty”, “violation
which (as a shameful example) may in fact
basically destroy the moral motive of beneficence.”
Kant also considered it a moral duty to take part in
kindness, understood as compassion for other people
in their misfortunes and as the sharing of their joys. Way-
strength and will to “share our feelings with each other”
"Kant considered as equally essential
another manifestation of philanthropy, which is also a good deed
with gratitude in return. The listed virtues
Kant opposed non-
benevolence, ingratitude and gloating,
whose common feature is misanthropy
quality. Qualification of philanthropy as the main virtue
virtues, and misanthropy as the main
vice filled Kant’s ethical concept with high
kim humanistic meaning. It softened a lot
rigorism of the first interpretations of “practical reason”
and placed an obstacle on the path of anti-humanistic
interpretation of this rigorism. Vices, resisting
those who owe a duty of respect to other people, Kant believed
arrogance, slander and mockery. In moral
oriented friendship Kant saw “the union of two
people based on mutual love and respect"
declaring that this kind of “friendship between people is
their duty." Kant specified that “moral friendship...-
it is complete trust between two people in disclosure
82
in front of each other secret thoughts and experiences,
as much as possible while maintaining mutual respect
marriage." In Kant's understanding of necessity
friendship, it is not difficult to notice the strong moments of social
no motivation characteristic of society,
in which there is no freedom of thought and speech. By
Cantu, it is in friendship that one can be satisfied
the human need to share -
among other secret things - with your thoughts “about
government, about religion,” without fear that frank
knowledge in these matters can be used in
bad for him. In conclusion, Kant pointed to “virtue”
whether treatment": "pleasantness in society", polite
kindness, tolerance, gentleness, hospitality
(39. 4/2. 393, 396, 398, 415, 417).
Inclusion in the “metaphysics of morality” is so
a wide set of virtues that eliminated de-
deficiency of content in Kant’s first interpretations
moral law, essentially eroded the thesis
about its necessary a prioriness and formality. This-
It was also facilitated by the fact that Kant came to understand
understanding that in many specific situations the choice
a line of behavior that is moral is by no means
not as easy as it seemed at first, and sometimes it turns out
even becomes quite complex. In relation to almost
Kant put every moral obligation as
zuist questions" that remain for the most part
he has no answers and forces the reader to make his own
earnestly seek moral truth.
Ethical apriorism was also undermined by the fact that
Kant increasingly understood the need
a person’s cultivation of his “practical”
reason" in the name of achieving moral perfection
stva. Considering it impossible to limit ourselves to that “good
will”, which people find in themselves as a certain given
ity, Kant set before each person the task
“raise the culture of your will to its purest
virtuous way of thinking when the law becomes
also the motive of his duty-compliant actions
kov..." According to Kant, “virtue must be
acquired (it is not innate)", due to which "goodness
bodies can and should be taught,” starting this work
from the child's instruction in the "moral catechism"
(39. 4/2. 321, 421, 423). Kant's claims that
view on the formation of virtues by moral
83
education is consistent with the thesis of a priori
moral law, are unsubstantiated and remain un-
reasonable assurances.
In the course of Kant’s unfolding of his ethical con-
concept has been eroded and its inherent
began with strict anti-eudaimonism, which consisted in the principle
fundamental denial of the legitimacy of the justification
morality by the pursuit of happiness. In "Metaphysics of Morals"
property" Kant pointed out that only "one's own
happiness" cannot be considered as a moral duty
(with the exception of the necessary self-care)
preservation), and “other people’s happiness” - in the sense of contributing
honoring him is just such a duty for
wait for the individual. Double duty and double morality
a person’s goal is “his own perfection and
"What happiness." This formula condemned egocentric
eudaimonism, but justified it as a moral
human efforts aimed at
to promote the happiness of all people. On-
filling Kantian ethics with eudaimonic principles
innovations were inextricably linked with the fact that everything was painful
her humane-
stical orientation, which is expressed in the following
the final formulation of the categorical impe-
rationale: “Man is an end both for himself and
and for others." According to Kant, this is exactly how one should understand
mother “the highest principle of the doctrine of virtue,” says
saying now: “Act according to this maxim of goals,
to have which can be a universal desire for everyone
konom" (39. 4/2. 319, 330).
All the clarifications, additions and cor-
directives introduced by Kant into the ethical concept
tion, revealed its fundamental kinship with the teachings
about the morality of English and French enlightenment
tels of the 18th century and expressed their common progressive
new social orientation. Under these conditions, co-
the persisting thesis about the apriority of the moral law
on, determined by the needs of “critical philosophy”
Sophia" as a system, found itself in its rational
in this aspect, an inadequate form of justification for the pre-
statements about the unshakable value of moral norms
and the inadmissibility of neglecting them for the sake of selfish
interests (out of fear of being subjected to all kinds of
possible adversity - from the loss of worldly prosperity
rays to the point of physical torment, threatening explosion
84
health and death). In these adversities Kant saw
the greatest temptation to break one's duty
(39.4/2.322) and by means of apriorism sought
eliminate this temptation. Freedom of "good will"
Kant considered as a necessary mediating
the link that makes it possible to perform actions
in accordance with the moral law, overcoming
the strongest anti-moral pressure empirically
social conditions in which people live.
"an imperative is a generally valid prescription, as opposed to a personal principle (maxim); a rule expressing an obligation (objective compulsion to act one way and not another).
The hypothetical imperative is valid only if known conditions; The categorical imperative expresses an unconditional, unwavering obligation; it establishes the form and principle that must be followed in behavior.
The categorical imperative, or moral imperative, is formulated by Kant as follows: “Act in such a way that the maxim of your will can at any time become the principle of universal legislation.”
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
See what “Imperative (philosophy)” is in other dictionaries:
Wiktionary has an article “imperative” Imperative (Latin imperativus imperative, from Latin impero I command): Imperative (philosophy) a general moral injunction; at Ka... Wikipedia
"Fichte" redirects here. See also other meanings. Johann Gottlieb Fichte Johann Gottlieb Fichte Date and place of birth: May 19, 1762 (176 ... Wikipedia
philosophy of language- Analytical movement in Cambridge and Oxford Analytical philosophy in Cambridge Philosophy of language developed in two centers, Cambridge and Oxford, which is why it is called “Cambridge Oxford philosophy.” It developed more like a movement, rather... Western philosophy from origins to the present day
- (from the Latin imperativus imperative), a term introduced by Kant in the “Critique of Practical Reason” (1788) and, in contrast to the conventional one, means “hypothetical. imperative", the basic law of his ethics. It has two formulations: “... do only... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
German thinkers already took part in the formation of scholasticism. They wrote in Lat. language, and their philosophy was part of the general Western European Aristotelian-Platonic Christ. philosophy. The beginning of “German” philosophy itself lies in the so-called. female... Philosophical Encyclopedia
This article lacks links to sources of information. Information must be verifiable, otherwise it may be questioned and deleted. You can... Wikipedia
Ideal (Latin idealis from Greek ίδέα image, idea) the highest value; the best, completed state of a particular phenomenon; an example of personal qualities and abilities; highest standard moral personality; highest degree moral idea of... ... Wikipedia
This term has other meanings, see Category (meanings). Category is a special concept used in the construction of theories. Contents 1 Etymology 2 History of development ... Wikipedia
- “JUSTIFICATION OF GOOD. Moral Philosophy” work by Vl. Solovyov, published in 1897 (last edition: Soch., vol. 1. M., 1988) and designed, according to the author’s plan, to become the first part of the system of “positive” philosophy of “all-unity”, which he ... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia
Books
- Philosophy, Ben Dupre. It is generally accepted that philosophy is complex and boring, and philosophers are abstruse recluses, far from real life. It's time to get rid of misconceptions. Philosophy has been a most dangerous business for centuries...
- Philosophical Theories in 30 Seconds by Barry Loewer. "I think, therefore I exist; existentialism; dialectical materialism? The Socratic method and deconstruction? Of course, you know what that means. Of course, you've heard about all this...
In the Critique of Practical Reason, Kant sets out his theory of ethics. Practical reason in Kant's teaching is the only source of principles of moral behavior; it is reason growing into will. Kant's ethics is autonomous and a priori, it is aimed at what should be, and not at what is. Its autonomy means the independence of moral principles from extra-moral arguments and grounds. The guideline for Kantian ethics is not the actual actions of people, but the norms arising from “pure” moral will. This is the ethic of duty. In the apriorism of duty, Kant seeks the source of the universality of moral norms.
An imperative is a rule that contains “objective compulsion to act.” The moral law is compulsion, the need to act contrary to empirical influences. This means that it takes the form of a coercive command - an imperative.
Hypothetical imperatives (relative or conditional imperatives) say that actions are effective in achieving certain goals (for example, pleasure or success).
The principles of morality go back to one supreme principle - the categorical imperative, which prescribes actions that are good in themselves, objectively, without regard to any goal other than morality itself (for example, the requirement of honesty). The categorical imperative states:
“act only in accordance with such a maxim, guided by which you can at the same time wish that it become a universal law” [options: “always act in such a way that the maxim (principle) of your behavior can become a universal law (act as you could wish that everyone would do so)"];
“act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it only as a means” [wording option: “treat humanity in your own person ( just as in the person of anyone else) always as an end and never only as a means"];
“the principle of the will of each person as a will that establishes universal laws with all its maxims”: one should “do everything based on the maxim of one’s will as one that could also have as its subject itself as a will that establishes universal laws.”
That's three different ways represent the same law, and each of them combines the other two.
Human existence “has within itself a highest goal...”; “... only morality and humanity, insofar as it is capable of it, have dignity,” writes Kant.
Duty is the necessity of acting out of respect for the moral law.
In ethical teaching, a person is considered from two points of view:
man as a phenomenon;
man as a thing in itself.
The behavior of the first is determined exclusively external factors and obeys a hypothetical imperative. The behavior of the second must obey the categorical imperative, the highest a priori moral principle. Thus, behavior can be determined by both practical interests and moral principles. Two trends emerge: the desire for happiness (the satisfaction of certain material needs) and the desire for virtue. These aspirations can contradict each other, and this is how the “antinomy of practical reason” arises.
As conditions for the applicability of the categorical imperative in the world of phenomena, Kant puts forward three postulates of practical reason. The first postulate requires complete autonomy of the human will, its freedom. Kant expresses this postulate with the formula: “You must, therefore you can.” Recognizing that without hope for happiness, people would not have the mental strength to fulfill their duty despite internal and external obstacles, Kant puts forward a second postulate: “there must be an immortality of the human soul.” Kant thus resolves the antinomy of the desire for happiness and the desire for virtue by transferring the hopes of the individual to the super-empirical world. The first and second postulates require a guarantor, and this can only be God, which means he must exist - this is the third postulate of practical reason.
The autonomy of Kant's ethics means the dependence of religion on ethics. According to Kant, “religion is no different from morality in its content.”
References
1. https://studme.org/54742/pravo/printsipy_pravovogo_polozheniya_cheloveka_grazhdanina
2. http://read.virmk.ru/HISTORY/NERSESIANS/12.htm
3. Baglay M.V. Constitutional law of the Russian Federation: Textbook for legal. Universities and faculties. – M.: INFRA – M Norma, 2009. – 776 p.
4. Shkatulla V.I. Jurisprudence: training manual for students of non-law universities. –
3rd ed., rev. and additional – M.: Academy, 2006. – 352 p.
5. Sukhanov E.A. Civil law: textbook in 4 volumes / E.A. Sukhanov. – M.: Wolters Kluwer, 2006.
In the history of philosophy, there have been many attempts to understand what makes us behave ethically, why we should behave this way, and also to identify the principle on which our moral choices are or could be based. The ethical theory of the German philosopher Immanuel Kant is one of the most remarkable such attempts.
Prerequisites for Kant's ethical theory
« Two things always fill the soul with new and ever stronger surprise and awe, the more often and longer we reflect on them - this is the starry sky above me and the moral law in me » . - Immanuel Kant
In developing his ethical theory, Kant proceeds from two important premises. The first of them is characteristic of all world philosophy, right up to the 19th century. It lies in the fact that there is such knowledge that is eternal, unchanging and universal.
The second premise is primarily characteristic of medieval religious philosophy and may seem very strange to modern man. It consists in the fact that freedom is independence from any circumstances. Kant divides the world of nature and the world of reason or the world of freedom, just as medieval theologians divide the kingdom of earth and the kingdom of heaven. In the natural world, man is subject to circumstances and therefore not free. He can become free only if he obeys the dictates of reason (whereas in the Middle Ages freedom consisted in submission to the will of God).
At the same time, the mind is busy learning the truth. Accordingly, everything that reason can prescribe to us is something eternal, unchanging and universal, that is, something that everyone should do at all times.
Three formulations of the categorical imperative
Based on this, Kant develops an ethical system based on the categorical imperative - the requirement of reason to strictly follow the rules it has developed. This imperative has three formulations that are mutually exclusive and complementary:
1. Act in such a way that the maxim of your will could be a universal law.
This formulation is very simple and follows directly from the premises used by Kant. In fact, he encourages us, when performing this or that action, to imagine what would happen if everyone did this all the time. Moreover, the evaluation of the action in in this case it will not be so much ethical or emotional: “I like it” or “not such a situation,” but strictly logical. If, in a case where everyone behaves in the same way as we do, the action loses its meaning or becomes impossible, then it cannot be performed.
For example, before you lie, imagine that everyone will always lie. Then the lie will be meaningless, because everyone will know that what they are being told is a lie. But in this case, communication will be practically impossible.
Such a rule cannot serve as a guide for the actions of all other intelligent beings, because it destroys itself - it is logically contradictory.
2. Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, both in your own person and in the person of everyone else, as an end, and never treat it only as a means.
This formulation follows much less obviously from the premises indicated above, and at the same time it is both more trivial and more interesting than the first. It proceeds from the fact that the source of any purpose and value is reason. And it is reason that is the purpose of the legislation that he develops.
Accordingly, the purpose of legislation is every bearer of reason, every rational being. If, on the basis of the first formulation of the categorical imperative, we were to make it a rule to use others as means to ends, and not as ends in themselves, we would be faced with a paradox in which no one and nothing can serve as the source of any end for which we could use certain means.
This imperative may seem quite trivial, since it is very similar to " golden rule morality": do as you want to be treated. However, it is interesting because, firstly, like the first imperative, it is based on logic, and not on desire or value, like the “golden rule”. Secondly, if the “golden rule” suggests looking at own desires and act towards others as if they were us, then the second formulation of the categorical imperative suggests realizing the value of someone else's life and desires, without replacing them with our own.
From the “golden rule” we can deduce that if you are, for example, a masochist, then you should cause pain to other people. Then, due to the crude universality of the prescriptions, it is more like the first formulation of the categorical imperative. The second calls us to think about the good of another person. She rather advises replacing oneself with another, whereas the “golden rule” suggests replacing another with oneself.
3. The third categorical imperative is not as clearly expressed in the text as the first two. It is formulated by Kant as follows: “ the idea of the will of every rational being as the will that establishes universal laws».
Here the first and second formulations of the categorical imperative are combined in a non-obvious way. The first requires the establishment of universal objective laws. The second requires making the subject the goal of these laws. The third actually repeats the premises and previous formulations.
The meaning of the third formulation is that the will of every rational being must serve as a source of legislation for itself. Only then will it freely follow this legislation. At the same time, only behavior dictated by reason is free. That is, any rational being must establish laws for itself (and the world) and, by virtue of its rationality, desire these laws, since they are aimed at realizing the goals of these beings dictated by the mind. 
If you find an error, please highlight a piece of text and click Ctrl+Enter.
The author of this statement raises the problem moral behavior people in society. He says that every person should act in life the same way everyone else did following his example. In other words, the author practically echoes the golden rule of morality. Many scientists and philosophers have supported this point of view and I will have to agree with this.
As you know from a social studies course, the rules of behavior in society are usually understood as social norms. All social norms can be divided into: law, morality, religious norms, customs and traditions. Failure to comply with certain social norms results in punishment. Punishment is used to encourage people to comply with social norms. Thus, it turns out that Kant calls on people to independently instill correct norms in society through their direct participation in the form of correct actions.
As an example confirming the author’s words, I would like to cite his own theory about the meaning of life in such a branch of knowledge as philosophy. Thus, one of the approaches to explaining the meaning of life is the categorical-imperative approach. Its essence literally boils down to the following: “Act with others in such a way that the maxim of your will can become the principle of universal legislation.” This theory has found a huge response among society and therefore one can safely agree with it.
In literature you can find many examples of how people begin to repeat the actions of their heroes, for example, in Russian literature, such heroes for children were the three Bogatyrs. Children admire the actions of the heroes of Russian fairy tales and echo them, thereby forcing other peers to echo them.
This problem is relevant to this day, when almost every person first of all cares about his well-being, and only then looks at whether his particular action can be elevated to a general rule.