Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Texts in the History of Philosophy)

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

read book* *Different edition

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Texts in the History of Philosophy)

by Immanuel Kant, Mary J. Gregor (translator), Christine M. Korsgaard (introduction)

3.7 of 5 stars 3.70 · rating details · 4,596 ratings · 137 reviews

Immanuel Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals ranks alongside Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics as one of the most profound and influential works in moral philosophy ever written. In Kant's own words its aim is to search for and establish the supreme principle of morality, the categorical imperative. This edition presents the acclaimed translati...more

paper, 76 pages

Published April 28th 1998 by Cambridge University Press (first published 1785)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Best Philosophy Book

40th out of 465 books — 437 voters

Common Sense, The Rights of Man and Other Essential Writings ... by Thomas Paine

The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling by Henry Fielding

Best Books of the 18th Century

44th out of 97 books — 196 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Jan 23, 2010 Joshua Nomen-Mutatio rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, ethics-and-or-metaethics

I was the annoying guy in class who kept insisting that the categorical imperative was the Golden Rule with a thick, convoluted veneer of the most difficult writing in philosophical history slathered all over it. Of course it is slightly different than the Golden Rule, but I'd say only trivially so. I understand Kant's influence, importance, etc, I just can't stand his writing. And I do think that his ideas, as influential as they were, were often failures. And again, the writing is painfully ba...more

24 likes · like · see review

Dec 30, 2007 Trevor rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

When I was studying this book there were no copies available to buy for some reason - but then I found it in the local library in a hard back edition printed in the 1930s or something. I borrowed it and showed it to my lecturer and he said, "You ought to steal that - they only charge you what it cost the library to buy and that would have been cents back then." I said, "You want me to steal a book on morality?" Needless to say, he was much better at lecturing on Neitzsche.

This is a remarkably di...more When I was studying this book there were no copies available to buy for some reason - but then I found it in the local library in a hard back edition printed in the 1930s or something. I borrowed it and showed it to my lecturer and he said, "You ought to steal that - they only charge you what it cost the library to buy and that would have been cents back then." I said, "You want me to steal a book on morality?" Needless to say, he was much better at lecturing on Neitzsche.

This is a remarkably difficult book to read - not as hard as some of Kant's other works - the Critique of Pure Reason *which I've started many times - and will probably start many times more) should only be attempted with fear and trepidation - all the same, it repays the effort. The main problem is Kant's endless sentences - he is the Henry James of the philosophy world.

Some feel that his categorical imperative - act in a way that allows you to imagine the maxim that is guiding your action could be used as a universal law for anyone needing to act in similar circumstances (my longer than Kant take on it) is a fascinating basis for building a morality.

Some say that the categorical imperative is just the Christian golden rule written in a way that makes it hard to follow. The golden rule not being 'he who has the gold makes the rules', but rather 'treat others as you would be treated yourself'. There is something to that, but I think it is a little more interesting when Kant does it. The idea that other people should be treated like ends and not means seems to me to be as good a basis of a moral system as anyone has, as yet, come up with.

I'm terribly fond of Kant, almost protective of him, not because I think he is the greatest philosopher of all time, but because he was what we would today consider a boring little man who never left his home town, but thought remarkable thoughts. He even worked out why the solar system is a flat disk shape - pretty cool, if you ask me. He had world changing thoughts in some ways.

I would go so far as to say that understanding his idea that one cannot know the thing-in-itself is perhaps one of the core ideas in understanding virtually all philosophy after him.

If you were thinking of starting reading Kant and weren't sure where would be a good place to make such a start this wouldn't be too bad a book to buy. The other place to look, perhaps, is the Critique of the Judgement which is quite an easy read (for Kant) and fascinating stuff on taste - taste in art, that is.(less)

11 likes · like · see review

Dec 21, 2012 Yann rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: germanie, philosophie, lumières

C'est quelque part au fond de l’Allemagne, en méditant solitairement à la chaleur d'un poêle, qu'un soldat français donna une nouvelle impulsion à la philosophie. Pour cela, ce nouveau Socrate proposa une démarche simple, fondée sur quelques principes, au premier desquels douter de tout, puis remplacer par degré les préjugés acquis à la hâte par des connaissances, en ne tenant pour vrai que ce qui nous parait évident. En face de toute difficulté, la découper en parties, jusqu’à ce que chacune d’...more C'est quelque part au fond de l’Allemagne, en méditant solitairement à la chaleur d'un poêle, qu'un soldat français donna une nouvelle impulsion à la philosophie. Pour cela, ce nouveau Socrate proposa une démarche simple, fondée sur quelques principes, au premier desquels douter de tout, puis remplacer par degré les préjugés acquis à la hâte par des connaissances, en ne tenant pour vrai que ce qui nous parait évident. En face de toute difficulté, la découper en parties, jusqu’à ce que chacune d’entre elle soit parfaitement claire et que ne subsiste même plus l’ombre d’un doute. En somme : en n'avancer jamais qu'en pleine lumière, et en évitant de nous aventurer dans les ténèbres de la présomption. Il débutait son ouvrage par une formule piquante qui est passée en adage : le bon sens est la chose du monde la mieux partagée.

Si on souhaite illustrer cette vérité, il n’y a qu’à considérer par exemple le domaine moral, où chacun dispose de cette faculté naturelle de former des jugements sur ses actions, autant que sur celles d'autrui: en dépit d’une certaine régularité, ce qui n’a jamais laissé de nous frapper, c’est la diversité de ces jugements suivant qui les forme. Est également vrai le fait que les jugements de chacun puissent évoluer : ainsi un tel, à qui telle action faisait naguère horreur, nous le trouvons bientôt beaucoup plus indulgent maintenant que telle vue lui a été suggérée, ou tel fait lui a été rapporté. C'est très utile de changer d'avis, il n'y a pas d'autre voie pour se tirer d'une erreur, mais ce n'est pas toujours le cas. Comment pourrait on être enfin fermement sûr d'avoir raison ? Car enfin, quand je me décide à agir, c'est maintenant! C'est désagréable d'avoir à songer que par la suite, si je me suis trompé, je pourrais avoir des remords. Réconcilier ces diversité de vues est-il possible ? Y a-t-il une règle infaillible, un critère absolu qui permette de qualifier la valeur morale d’une action, et mette tout le monde d'accord ? Ou bien en morale, doit-on se contenter d'un relativisme général, et abandonner l'espoir d'un quelconque repère qui en s'imposant à tous, pourrait faire taire les controverses ? Pour le philosophe Immanuel Kant, cette question ne porte pas simplement un intérêt spéculatif : c’est un besoin impérieux qui le pousse à trouver une solution, car rien ne paraît lui fait plus horreur que de se résigner à ce constat d'impuissance.

Si pour la nature, il nous est loisible de procéder à des expériences et des observations sur un objet commun, lesquelles permettent de mettre fin aux disputes, en morale, il en va tout autrement, car chacun est enfermé dans sa subjectivité. Egalement, cette règle unique qu’il cherche, d'immenses difficultés pèsent sur la possibilité de l’établir: elles avaient été clairement exposées par ses prédécesseurs, Locke et Hume, lesquels avaient soigneusement tracés les limites de notre connaissance : ce ne sont que les sens qui peuvent nous instruire. Comme il accepte et reprend ces résultats, il refuse donc les systèmes métaphysiques dogmatiques plus anciens. Kant va donc adopter comme méthode de faire de simples hypothèses dans ce monde métaphysique, le domaine de la foi interdit à jamais à la connaissance. En effet, en métaphysique, on peut tout imaginer pourvu que l'on se garde de la hardiesse d'affirmer un "je sais", et se contente d'un humble "je crois" : c'est un sanctuaire à l'abri du scepticisme. Il prend donc le soin scrupuleux de distinguer prudemment le domaine du savoir de celui de la spéculation, pour se préserver du risque de toute réfutation. De là un jargon que l'on peut regretter, mais qui a sans doute été nécessaire à son dessein. Partant de là, pourquoi ne pas supposer qu’une telle règle existe, et en tirer les conséquences ?

Comme le rappelle le dicton qui nous console, lorsque nos œuvres ne tournent pas aussi bien que nous l'aurions voulu, c'est l'intention qui compte, plus que le résultat. La grande habileté de l'auteur consiste à exploiter le fait qu'en toute bonne fois, nous ne pouvons prétendre connaître parfaitement la volonté, c'est à dire en dégager et identifier clairement toutes les règles et toutes les causes. En métaphysique, pour marcher sûrement, il faut rester à l'ombre : il a adopté une position quasiment inexpugnable. Kant prétend donc qu'il n'est pas interdit d'imaginer que notre volonté ait en partie une cause spontanée, c'est-à-dire pour parler plus clairement, qu'elle soit influencée par une chose apparue apparemment à partir de rien, au rebours de tout ce que l'on observe dans la nature. Mais pourquoi une supposition aussi alambiquée, hardie et pour parler franchement difficile à concevoir ? Nous verrons.

C'est que pour Kant, l’homme est corrompu par sa sensibilité. Comme argument, il avance l’idée que nous sommes guidés par un instinct qui nous pousse au bonheur, et nous détourne de nos devoirs. Mais enfin? L’homme n’a-t-il pas aussi en lui-même quelque chose de sublime, une exigence d’estime et de dignité, l’amour-propre, qui se manifeste en lui soit par l’aiguillon cuisant de la honte, soit par la tranquillité d’une conscience pure et nette ? Quoi? N’est-ce pas ce même sentiment qui nous fait préférer subir une injustice plutôt que la commettre, affronter les pires épreuves plutôt que le mépris de nous-mêmes, et mettre dans la justice le premier de nos intérêt ? Quoi? L’homme n’a-t-il pas en lui-même cette tendre affection pour son prochain, qui se manifeste par la sympathie, c'est-à-dire le partage des joies et des peines ?
Mais pour Kant, tout ceci n'est guère suffisant, car ces sentiments peuvent encore être vaincus par des passions plus fortes, et ne peuvent donc prétendre être ce guide sûr qu'il appelle de ses vœux. Comme il ne voie décidément rien dans la sensibilité qui puisse protéger définitivement, totalement et absolument l’homme de cette corruption, il l'exclue de sa recherche. Ce n'est donc qu'après lui avoir offusqué la vue, coupé l'ouïe, annihilé le goût, effacé la mémoire, éteint les sentiments, l'imagination, le rêve et la volonté, quand il ne reste de lui plus qu’un cadavre et un peut-être un fantôme, voilà que l’homme peut enfin devenir parfaitement bon. Dans cet état, on pourrait se dire qu'il ne ferait plus beaucoup de mal, et sûrement pas tellement plus de bien. Mais comme il faut avouer que l'on n'en sait rien, taisons nous, et poursuivons, car l'auteur ne s'arrête pas là.

Cette règle peut être énoncée ainsi : "Agis comme si ta maxime devait servir de loi universelle pour tous les êtres raisonnables". Attention lecteur! Prend garde! Tu devrais peut-être l'adopter dés à présent comme règle pour ta vie, sinon, c'est sans doute que tu es méchant. Tu ne veux pas être un méchant, n'est-ce-pas ? Or rassure-toi, ce n'est pas assez de te contraindre de mauvaise grâce, car tu n'en serait pas absolument bon pour autant : il faut encore que tu veuille spontanément suivant cette règle. Tu ne te rendra donc compte de rien, puisque rien de ce que tu perçois n'est bon absolument. Mais quoi!? Si tel est le Bien absolu, n'est-il pas alors à craindre que beaucoup ne se rabattent finalement sur le Bien particulier? Car, quoi de plus fantastiquement arbitraire et difficile que d'identifier une règle de vie qui pourrait convenir à tous universellement, en toutes circonstances, et qui de plus serait adoptée spontanément ? Et ne va-t-on pas craindre bien plus ceux, encore plus nombreux, qui ne manqueraient pas de l'adopter ? En effet, rien ne paraît être si répandu et faire autant de dommages que cette prétention d'imposer ses choix moraux de manière universelle, tout en étant persuadé d'avoir raison.

Or pourtant, quelle que soit la force des quolibets qui l'attaquent, cette thèse va tranquillement rester ferme. Pourquoi ? En joignant le fait que l'on puisse imaginer que la volonté échappe à des déterminations que l'on pourrait connaître, et en identifiant comme source du bien les causes spontanées, on peut rendre possible l'existence d'une règle morale absolue, car on s'affranchit de l'hétéronomie dénoncée précédemment. Mais comment ? Par une volonté métaphysique commune à tous les être raisonnables qui les pousse à bien agir absolument. Mais c'est dingue ça! Peut-être bien, car rien n'a été prouvé, mais ce système reste néanmoins toujours possible : c'est toute la force de la métaphysique. Mince! Il faudrait donc baisser les armes de la controverse? Sans doute. Si on croit que les causes spontanées sont possibles, alors il pourrait exister une morale absolue, et si la question nous agite, avoir un espoir. Mais sinon, pour ceux qui n'étaient pas désespérés, il restera au moins la liberté de se régler comme ils l'entendent, et d'améliorer leurs maximes au gré de leurs facultés et des circonstances.

(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 09, 2012 Matt rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The protagonist, the Categorical Imperative, leads the reader on a wild ride of through theoretical philosophy and the metaphysics of morals. Kidding aside, this work was surprisingly readable at times, and as dense as you would have suspected at others. I've always suspected that Kant was influenced deeply by Christianity as his Categorical Imperative came off as a restatement of the Golden Rule and his principal that humans must be treated not as means but ends in themselves is resonant with a...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 13, 2008 laura rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, tortuous, beautiful, dry

i read the groundwork (finally finally) cover to cover in an airport in washington dc, where i spent a fourteen hour day watching one flight after another cancelled cancelled cancelled, and i have to tell you that people are near to their worst (that average daily sort of worst) in airports as their flights are cancelled. everyone was fighting for seats on future flights which would also be cancelled. everyone was arguing their cases to helpless airport staff, and the staff, in turn, treated us...more

4 likes · like · see review

Nov 18, 2012 Natalie rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction

I can't remember exactly who it was that said the 'German thinkers dug deeper, and came up muddier', but that quote rings so true for Kant.

Kant's Groundwork is full of interesting ideas and premises, and lays the basis for his moral philosophy, later expanded upon in other volumes. It's fairly original, and more precise than a number of other philosophical works of Enlightenment writers. Once you get to the core of what he's communicating, Kant has a strong and compelling argument - but, of cour...more

like · see review

Sep 24, 2012 Joaquin Siabra-Fraile rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

"Metafísica de las costumbres" ocupa en el sistema kantiano, respecto a la "Crítica de la Razón Práctica", el mismo lugar que los "Principios metafísicos de la ciencia de la naturaleza" respecto a la "Crítica de la Razón Pura" (para el Juicio no hay metafísica, sólo Crítica). Si la Crítica limitaba el alcance del ejercicio de la Razón, en su uso práctico, mediante el establecimiento de las condiciones de posibilidad de la acción libre, la Metafísica deduce los principios a priori de la legislaci...more "Metafísica de las costumbres" ocupa en el sistema kantiano, respecto a la "Crítica de la Razón Práctica", el mismo lugar que los "Principios metafísicos de la ciencia de la naturaleza" respecto a la "Crítica de la Razón Pura" (para el Juicio no hay metafísica, sólo Crítica). Si la Crítica limitaba el alcance del ejercicio de la Razón, en su uso práctico, mediante el establecimiento de las condiciones de posibilidad de la acción libre, la Metafísica deduce los principios a priori de la legislación aplicable a la acción libre. Kant parte de la facultad de desear entendida como "la facultad de ser, por medio de sus representaciones, causa de los objetos de estas representaciones". La facultad de desear cuyo fundamento interno de determinación es la razón del sujeto es la voluntad. Esta voluntad admite una legislación racional mediante el imperativo categórico (legislación ética), como Kant había mostrado en la "Fundamentación de la Metafísica de las costumbres" y en la "Crítica de la Razón Práctica". Ahora bien, en la "Metafísica de las Costumbres" Kant estudia la legislación ética que puede ser exterior (atendiendo unicamente a la condición formal de la libertad: que la máxima de la acción sea universalizable sin contradicción), o sólamente interior (atendiendo a los fines que se propone la razón pura). La primera da lugar a la Doctrina del Derecho; la segunda, a la Doctrina de la Virtud. Ambas partes componen esta "Metafísica de las Costumbres".
La dificultad de Kant no viene tanto de su estilo, de lo más claro y conciso del Idealismo alemán, como de ese carácter sistemático-arquitectónico que obliga a tener en cuenta el todo para comprender completamente la parte. Si bien, se nos dice, nosotros ya no somos tan modernos como para aceptar un modelo de Razón tan fuerte (y exigente) como el kantiano, para superarlo hay que conocerlo previamente. Y si alguien ha cumplido el ideal racional ilustrado de sistema, ése es Kant. Esta obra es de lectura obligada para entender no sólo la filosofía kantiana, sino lo que significa en general construir un sistema filosófico a gran escala.

Por cierto, no deja de asombrar que por estos lares se le achaque a Kant ser "aburrido". Como si ahora fuese obligación del filósofo entretener. Para eso está el cine, señores.
(less)

like · see review

Jun 12, 2011 Pete rated it 5 of 5 stars

Anyone interested in ethics (moral philosophy) must read this work. Of the handful of indispensable moral philosophical works, along with Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Aquinas' Summa, and Mill's Utilitarianism. Relatively short (but dense; he is German after all), the beginner of Kant's philosophy should start here, and then advance to his (arguably even more influential) epistemology. In my opinion, it's easier this way than to tackle the 1st Critique first. As profound as G...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Rowland Bismark rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals was published in 1785, just before the Critique of Practical Reason. It is essentially a short introduction to the argument presented in the second Critique. In order to understand what Kant is up to in this book, it is useful to know something about Kant's other works and about the intellectual climate of his time.

Kant lived and wrote during a period in European intellectual history called the "Enlightenment." Stretching from the mid-seventeenth cen...more The Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals was published in 1785, just before the Critique of Practical Reason. It is essentially a short introduction to the argument presented in the second Critique. In order to understand what Kant is up to in this book, it is useful to know something about Kant's other works and about the intellectual climate of his time.

Kant lived and wrote during a period in European intellectual history called the "Enlightenment." Stretching from the mid-seventeenth century to the early nineteenth, this period produced the ideas about human rights and democracy that inspired the French and American revolutions.

The characteristic quality of the Enlightenment was an immense confidence in "reason"--that is, in humanity's ability to solve problems through logical analysis. The central metaphor of the Enlightenment was a notion of the light of reason dispelling the darkness of mythology and misunderstanding. Enlightenment thinkers like Kant felt that history had placed them in the unique position of being able to provide clear reasons and arguments for their beliefs. The ideas of earlier generations, they thought, had been determined by myths and traditions; their own ideas were based on reason.

The common thread of all these criticisms is that Kant's position is too abstract to be useful. As human beings, we live in a particular place at a particular time. It is not necessarily possible or desirable for us to separate our rationality from the other features of our personality. We may reason about issues in abstract terms, and we may imagine the situations of other people, yet our starting point must always be our own life situation.

It is a typical feature--a common "mistake," if you will--of Enlightenment thinking to presume that we can ignore our own particularities and discover universal principles of reason. This "mistake" may have been possible because Enlightenment philosophers came from a relatively homogeneous culture (that of eighteenth-century Europe) and from a relatively homogeneous class position (one of relative financial security). This homogeneity may have led Enlightenment thinkers to oversimplify certain questions, presuming that their answers were "rational" when they in fact depended on cultural assumptions.

On the other hand, Kant's philosophy--and Enlightenment philosophy in general-- is by no means a philosophy of privilege. Indeed, Kant's ideas are radically egalitarian. According to Kant, moral truths are not received from on high through divine revelation or inspiration. Rather, they are based on reasons that make sense to all people (indeed, all rational beings) who bother to think about them. The passion with which people espouse moral views suggests that many people continue to share Kant's view that moral principles must be absolute and universal. Late twentieth-century people may be more aware of diversity than Kant was. As a result, we may have less confidence than him that what makes sense to us will make sense to other people. Nevertheless, in our day as in Kant's, people do tend to think that there is more to their moral beliefs than mere cultural prejudice.

Like all great philosophers, Kant's arguments have provoked a wide range of responses, positive and negative. Whatever we make of Kant's views, it would be difficult to underestimate the historical impact of his "Copernican Revolution" in philosophy. Even today, nearly two hundred years after his death, Kant's arguments remain a powerful presence in philosophy.

The distinction that Kant draws in the Preface between "pure" and "empirical" concepts is of critical importance to his philosophy. "Pure" or "a priori" concepts are ideas that occur to us when we think about things in our minds, "prior" to and independent of any experience of how things happen in the world. "Empirical" or "a posteriori" concepts are ideas that we derive from our experience of the world.

In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant argued that many of our basic ideas about the world--our notions of time, space, and causation, for instance--are a priori concepts; they are "hardwired" into our brains, rather than extrapolated from our experiences. This argument led him to a number of interesting conclusions about the limits of human understanding and the errors of traditional philosophy (see the Context section for more information on the first Critique). In this book, Kant makes a similar argument about moral philosophy. He identifies the basic principles of moral thinking that occur to us independent of any particular situation or experience, and he offers some criticism of philosophers who have advanced different bases for morality.

Kant argues that his project makes sense in terms of our intuitions about morality. About halfway through the Preface, he claims that when we think about morality, we naturally presume that moral laws must apply to all people at all times. He bases this claim on the notion that moral actions are supposed to be undertaken for the sake of morality alone; we are supposed to have pure (as opposed to self-interested) motivation for moral actions. Yet as soon as particular circumstances enter the picture, it becomes impossible to think of motivations being entirely pure; in any particular situation, human beings will have interests and concerns that form a component of their motivation.

This train of thought leads Kant to the conclusion that a secure understanding of morality must be based on the "pure," a priori concepts of reason. "Pure," a priori concepts are concepts that occur to us before we have any experience of the world. If moral ideas were drawn from experience, then they could not be assured universal validity, for they would be based only on the limited set of events that we have experienced. Moral ideas may be universally valid, Kant argues, only if they are based on the intrinsic validity of a priori concepts.

Kant's distinction between "rational beings" and "men" may make this point more clear. Being a human being entails possessing a certain "human nature." We get hungry, we fall in love, we have emotional and physical needs. In Kant's view, this human nature should not be a consideration in moral thinking. Human nature is a particular circumstance that affects human beings. We could imagine some other form of rational being--an extraterrestrial life form, for instance-- possessing a different nature. But we would not excuse the cruel behavior of some monstrous creature; rather, we would judge the monster's actions according to the same moral standard that we apply to ourselves. According to Kant, this fact demonstrates that our moral thinking is not based on an understanding of "nature" or disposition, but rather on universally applicable concepts--and the only concepts that we can know apply in all circumstances are the concepts that occur to us a priori, independent of any particular experience or circumstance.

You may be thinking at this point that Kant seems to want people to behave like robots. By his account, morality requires us to separate our rationality from our nature and act solely on the basis of logical principles. This idea is strongly rooted in the basic ideas of the Enlightenment (see the Context section for discussion of this period in European intellectual history). Like many of his contemporaries, Kant understands reason to be the source of fundamental truths that transcend culture and history. Rational ideas are ideas that makes sense to all people; they are universal. Kant believes the task of philosophy is to develop a stronger understanding of these ideas. He also believes that rational ideas have a strong claim to authority. A morality based on reason would make sense to all people; Kant thinks it would therefore be superior to a moral system accepted by only one particular group of people. (less)

1 like · like · see review

Oct 07, 2009 Guida Allès rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: filosofia

Després d'haver-lo llegit no pots viure com si res. Has pogut pensar amb les idees d'una ment gran, que mai hauries conegut si no l´haguessis llegit. Aquí copiï les cites preferides:

Es imposible que un ser finito, aunque sea extraordinariamente perspicaz y esté tremendamente capacitado, pueda hacerse una idea precisa de lo que realmente quiere.

Ser caritativo supone un deber....pero hay muchas almas compasivas que encuentran un íntimo placer en esparcir júbilo a su alrededor y pueden regocijars...more

like · see review

Feb 15, 2009 Rhonda rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

As has been said elsewhere and with more authority than I can muster without citing letters after my name, this book, even on its own, is a landmark for thinking on par with Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. While criticism is often waged upon this deceivingly simple book, one must truly understand the arguments applied from The First Critique (The Critique of Pure Reason) in order to object to its arguments. Hence, although easily read on its own, it is not nearly as formidable a champion of log...more

1 like · like · see review

May 12, 2011 Ian Kennedy rated it 4 of 5 stars

At only 66 pages of main text, you might think this slim volume would make a quick read. Unless you know anything of Kant's writing style. As a thinker, he was careful with his logic so his arguments developed deliberately. This means that, given his assumptions, his points are generally sound. On the other hand, it leads to some rather dense and dreary prose. That doesn't, however, take away from my for star rating, and neither should it discourage you from picking up this wonderful volume. In...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 13, 2012 Pierre E. Loignon rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophie

Toute l’existence kantienne a été vouée au Souverain Bien et toute sa philosophie en découle: « Il n’y a nulle part quoi que ce soit dans le monde, ni même en général hors de celui-ci, qu’il soit possible de penser et qui pourrait sans restriction être tenu pour bon, à l’exception d’une volonté bonne. »(59)
Or, la question du bien ne doit pas être abordée d’une manière qui ne lui convienne pas. Défendre, par exemple, le Bien par le biais d’arguments esthétiques ou religieux, ou pire, par le biai...more Toute l’existence kantienne a été vouée au Souverain Bien et toute sa philosophie en découle: « Il n’y a nulle part quoi que ce soit dans le monde, ni même en général hors de celui-ci, qu’il soit possible de penser et qui pourrait sans restriction être tenu pour bon, à l’exception d’une volonté bonne. »(59)
Or, la question du bien ne doit pas être abordée d’une manière qui ne lui convienne pas. Défendre, par exemple, le Bien par le biais d’arguments esthétiques ou religieux, ou pire, par le biais d’une argumentation manipulatrice et mensongère ne peut absolument pas convenir. Il faut s’assurer de procéder honnêtement, de faire la recherche pour soi-même d’abord avant de la présenter comme une libre possibilité à d’autres.
Ceci dit, sur une question métaphysique de la sorte, même la recherche la plus honnête risque d’entraîner irrésistiblement l’humain qui la fait vers le dogmatisme ou le scepticisme, lieux où la moralité disparaît, car le scepticisme n’y croit pas et parce que le dogmatisme y croit dans l'illusion. Afin d'éviter de sombrer dans l’une de ces impasses morales, il est donc nécessaire d’établir d’abord clairement quelles sont les ouvertures et les limites de la raison humaine afin d’établir fermement une position critique où la moralité pourra être poursuivie en toute sûreté. Pour ce faire, Kant écrira sa Critique de la raison pure.
Par la suite, sans craindre de sombrer dans la ratiocination métaphysique, il devrait ensuite pouvoir enfin se permettre d’aborder la question qui lui tient le plus à cœur : celle de la moralité.
Pourtant, dans sa Fondation de la métaphysique des mœurs il semble se contenter d’aborder uniquement les quelques questions préliminaires en exposant l’analogon de sentiment qu’est le « respect » et en présentant diverses formulation de l’impératif catégorique, avant de tenter une déduction de la liberté dans la 3e partie. Et c’est sans aucun doute l’échec de sa déduction de la liberté qui l’a retenu quelque temps d’écrire sa Métaphysique des Moeurs. La moralité est en effet impossible si la liberté n’est pas présente.
Mais puisque le contenu de la moralité nous est rendue présente par le biais de l'impératif catégorique, comment se fait-il que la liberté, qui devrait nécessairement l’accompagner, ne peut en être déduite? C’est que toute déduction appartient au monde amoral de la logique et de la nécessité, tandis que la liberté implique un saut dans la réflexion ou dans l’existence. Elle échappe, en son essence même, à toutes nécessités et à toutes causalités.
Ce saut, Kant n’est pas encore prêt à l’assumer dans son écriture lorsqu'il produit sa Fondation de la métaphysique des moeurs. On pourra observer le surgissement de ce saut, si on a l’œil fait pour cela, dans les premières parties de sa Critique de la raison pratique qu’il écrira trois ans plus tard.
Je ne veux toutefois pas abuser de la patience des gens qui ont l’amabilité de lire cette petite réflexion qui se veut explicative sur cette pièce très importante de la philosophie kantienne.
L’ensemble constitue une lecture incontournable à quiconque s’intéresse, pour sa propre vie ou par simple curiosité, à la moralité ou à la philosophie en général. Et pour les autres, ça se lit très bien (pour du Kant) et ça constitue un très bel (et bon) exercice de réflexion.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 30, 2011 Adam rated it 2 of 5 stars

Shelves: 1500-s-1700-s, continental-philosophy

I read this electronic edition: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/k..., which did not strike me as particularly hard to read or understand, despite the fact that those are very common complaints re: this book. Actually, I was mostly impressed with Kant's reasoning and argument, apart from the unnecessary conditions of morality later in the book, but deontological ethics (focused on good in itself, etc. divorced from consequence or social contract etc.) just don't work, and the (first formulati...more I read this electronic edition: http://www.earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/k..., which did not strike me as particularly hard to read or understand, despite the fact that those are very common complaints re: this book. Actually, I was mostly impressed with Kant's reasoning and argument, apart from the unnecessary conditions of morality later in the book, but deontological ethics (focused on good in itself, etc. divorced from consequence or social contract etc.) just don't work, and the (first formulation of the) Categorical Imperative fails because it is so utterly restricted, ruling out the moral worth of going beyond duty's call, and of course also of actions that we would not will to become universal laws, but would perform in situations where there is real benefit as a consequence of that action not just for ourselves, but for others too. One may admire the concept and work within it, and believing in it may 'make exceptions' for herself, but this person also has to accept that her actions have no moral worth, are not good. That all falls apart. The biggest problem I have with Kant's ethical system is how utterly individual it is, and how essentialist. The thought behind deontological ethics is itself admirable; I do think we are really desperate to find a solid theoretical grounding for practical ethics, a grounding that various other sorts of metaethical positions just don't give us (the average non-Kantian gets all jittery if asked to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with rape in a state of nature, even though professional philosophers and such are willing to do so), but to accept Kant's system is to accept a deeply flawed one. I understand that it's more intuitively appealing to read The Humanity Formula and get the fuzzies than to read Hobbes, but at some point we surely ought to be able to get past what seems nice and confront the fact that the metaethical truth that allows for justice and beauty in practical application is probably going to have some seriously ugly theoretical side effects. (less)

like · see review

Jul 16, 2010 Jeremy added it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

It's probably a product of having been in grad school for too long, but somehow I found myself really liking this piece. I don't even care that it's not applicable to real life, at least his methods are based on tying human action to univsersal principles that anyone can participate in instead of trying to create this really creepy classist/elitist system of morality which the ancient greeks oozed over. And unlike the clunky, inhuman ethical systems espoused by more anylitic thinkers, Kant is at...more

5 likes · like · see review

Jun 14, 2011 Lorraine rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is, without a doubt, the most bizarre text I've ever read. Technical things first: This is Routledge's The Moral Law -- they changed the title; I didn't read why. The translator said something [briefly in some section] to the effect that it was a horrid title [I don't think so!]. The first thing to note is that the footnotes correspond to the GERMAN edition -- which has its page numbers written in the margins next to the body of the text. I didn't realise this until more than halfway throug...more This is, without a doubt, the most bizarre text I've ever read. Technical things first: This is Routledge's The Moral Law -- they changed the title; I didn't read why. The translator said something [briefly in some section] to the effect that it was a horrid title [I don't think so!]. The first thing to note is that the footnotes correspond to the GERMAN edition -- which has its page numbers written in the margins next to the body of the text. I didn't realise this until more than halfway through [thanks Samuel Johnson; I usually skip everything and go straight for the meat, and only refer to footnotes if I have to, so I didn't realise this because I didn't read the translator's note...]. Secondly, I haven't read the 'introduction' -- the scholarly commentary. I've flipped through it briefly and apparently HJ Paton is a serious analytic guy.

Anyway, the thing I gathered from this, mainly, is that Kant is saying, if it makes you happy to be helpful or kind, for instance, YOU ARE IMMORAL. This is absolutely bizarre, because then he talks about The Will -- it's all about Willing and the self. Yet he says, you must will yourself in line with nature's laws [to be universal, if I'm not wrong] and yet there seems to be some opposition between nature and the will -- back to Aristotle here, that reason is the distinguishing characteristic of man (VS other creatures). There is also some implicit theology going on, which complicates everything completely.

It is confusing. What's even more confusing is that at some level, Kant seems to realise whatever contradictions he makes and desperately scrambles to defend them, in the process coming up with something completely ingenious. It's like seeing a drowning spider save itself by deciding to swallow water! Prof Phillips informs me that Kant's absolute favorite text was Pope's Essay on Man, which I haven't read, and that might help me. I know it has something to do with the whole nature thing [naturalistic fallacy?].

The text is very dense and impossible to cover. I liked it though. I've made fun of poor Kant, but he's a smart (and creative!) guy, and whatever points I DIDN'T quibble with -- there is much, much merit in his text.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 06, 2010 Venus added it

Shelves: philosophy

That there must be such a philosophy is self-evident from the common idea of duty and moral laws. Everyone must admit �that if a law is to hold morally (i.e. as a basis for someone’s being obliged to do something), it must imply absolute necessity; �that the command: Thou shalt not lie doesn’t apply only to human beings, as though it had no force for other rational beings (and similarly with all other moral laws properly so called); �that the ground of obligation here mustn’t be looked for in pe...more

like · see review

Mar 05, 2012 Mashael Alamri rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, translated, 2012

ترجمة الكتاب رائعة , شرحت بالتفصيل فلسفة كانط بطريقة ميسرة قد تكون مفاتيح للكثير من البحث أو القراءة , فكرت كثيرا كيف أكتب المراجعة للكتاب ووجدت أنني أكتب صفحات عدة لأن الكتاب بترجمته هو عبارة عن مراجعة هل سأنقله بأكمله ؟؟
أول كتاب اقرأه لكانط , بخلاف بعض المقالات والشروحات عن فلسفته لذلك أحتاج الكثير قبل أن أكتب عنه أقلها الإطلاع على مؤلف آخر له لأنها الآن تبدو لي صعبه.

3 likes · like · see review

Jun 06, 2011 Bojan Tunguz rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Kant is not considered as one of the more accessible philosophers, and most of his monumental works are too long and beyond reach of an average reader. This short book is still fairly advanced and conceptually sophisticated, but fortunately due to its length it does not go much too deep in philosophical concepts. The book deals on several occasions with the central concept in Kant's moral philosophy, and that is the concept of categorical imperative. This imperative can be summed up in Kant's fa...more

like · see review

Feb 18, 2012 C. Hollis Crossman rated it 1 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Kant's language is consistently abstruse. That's about all you can say for his "prose style."

As for his ideas, he attempts to wrest ethics and morality from any foundation in divine authority, and provide for them a basis solely derived from human reason. The idea that humans can have any idea of right and wrong independent of God's revelation is ludicrous; that Kant thinks he can establish such an idea by himself is absurd.

The one thing I can say for this little tract: the "categorical imperati...more

like · see review

Apr 16, 2011 Simon rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is a pretty good effort from Kant, and a solid argument for the objectivity and a priority of morals. We see the person as an end in themselves and personally I found this far more pursuasive than Mill's Utilitarianism that places happiness for the majority above the individual. However Kant's Kingdom of Ends if far too removed from real life dilemmas where it just doesn't seem reasonable to apply the universal maxim for all situations, mostly because real life is just too darn complicated....more

1 like · like · see review

Jul 25, 2009 Siriss rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: economic-political, other

Good = Bad

I've always been one that I would consider of extreme moral character. And my view, you always knew what was right because it required the sacrifice. Odd how this book was refered to me because the referer thought it would only bolster my resolve. Quite to the contrary, it destroyed my view on moral judgment with a simple stroke.

I grant that, as Kant depicted, without choice and freedom of will the concepts of good/bad and right/wrong are meaningless. But if you take that one simple po...more Good = Bad

I've always been one that I would consider of extreme moral character. And my view, you always knew what was right because it required the sacrifice. Odd how this book was refered to me because the referer thought it would only bolster my resolve. Quite to the contrary, it destroyed my view on moral judgment with a simple stroke.

I grant that, as Kant depicted, without choice and freedom of will the concepts of good/bad and right/wrong are meaningless. But if you take that one simple portion of the equation you find that free will means that the concepts of good/bad and right/wrong have no meaning.

Think of it this way (and yes I am super simplifying it)...
1) The right thing as Kant puts it is something that one ought to do. You know if you ought to do something because a purely rational being would do it.
2) Doing the right thing is what we should all strive for. We should all strive and be that purely rational being.
3) So in the utopic society - or rather if we all got our (presupposed) wish to be that purely rational being, then we would be doing the right thing to the exclusion of all the bad things. That is to say there would be no bad actions.
4) The complete lack of all bad actions makes the ability to choose between right and wrong meaningless, because de facto you always do or are inconsequentially choose to do the right thing.
5) If it is the importance of the choice to determine right and wrong then without choice their is no right.
6) Since doing the right thing has value over doing the wrong thing, then the lack of having the meaningfulness of right devalues those social values. The devaluation of what is right makes doing the "right" thing wrong.
7) (6) works in reverse so that doing the wrong thing gives meaning to choice and therefore adds value to "right". Thus doing what is wrong is right.
8) Since doing what is absolutely wrong is absolutely right (and vice versa) is a paradox on its face, there really is no actual right or wrong.
9) One could say that on the ends of the scale, right and wrong lose their meaning because of this but that they stay intact somewhere in the middle. But the point that Kant was making was that there were absolute "maxims". Those maxims give us guidance to strive for and push towards, but in the end the achievment of those absolute rights is wrong so striving for them too diligently is wrong. If striving to do the right thing is wrong and vice versa, then there is no point to it (in the context of ethical debate that is).

Someone directed to read his stuff because it sounded so much like what I tended to believe but following his own logic, I had to reflect on my own judgments.(less)

like · see review

Oct 12, 2012 Benjamin rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy

The Groundwork is a compact and concise treatise elucidating the metaphysical nature of ethics. This particular edition has a long introductory section from the editor—which serves as a helpful aid for understanding what follows—outlining the Groundwork. Following the introduction is Kant’s own preface then three chapters: the first traversing from ordinary rational knowledge of morality to the philosophical, supreme unconditioned law; the second, traversing from popular moral philosophy to a me...more

like · see review

Nov 12, 2012 Carlos Anderson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Firstly, this book leads me to believe that Kant is very accessible. His argument is very organized and his language isn't overly complex or involuted. He articulates his points with great clarity. Anyone whose read Heidegger or Hegel or the really head-scratchingly difficult Thus spoke Zarathustra will find this a welcome respite, and be able to walk away from a single reading with a fairly cogent understanding of his ideas (though of course the aforementioned books are indeed enjoyable in thei...more

like · see review

Jul 12, 2010 Makson rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Ο Διαφωτισμός είναι η έξοδος του ανθρώπου από την ανωριμότητα του για την οποία ο ίδιος είναι υπεύθυνος. Η διάσημη φράση του Καντ θα λέγαμε πως στην ηθική του μεταφράζεται στην έξοδο του ανθρώπου από την ανωριμότητα της φυσικής ορμής και την υποταγή στην κατηγορική προσταγή.

Κορυφαία φυσιογνωμία της εποχής του Διαφωτισμού και «υπεύθυνος» για τον γερμανικό ιδεαλισμό, ο Καντ (Πρωσία, 1724-1804) είναι γνωστός για τις τρεις περίφημες κριτικές του: Η κριτική του Καθαρού Λόγου (1781), Η Κριτική του Πρ...more Ο Διαφωτισμός είναι η έξοδος του ανθρώπου από την ανωριμότητα του για την οποία ο ίδιος είναι υπεύθυνος. Η διάσημη φράση του Καντ θα λέγαμε πως στην ηθική του μεταφράζεται στην έξοδο του ανθρώπου από την ανωριμότητα της φυσικής ορμής και την υποταγή στην κατηγορική προσταγή.

Κορυφαία φυσιογνωμία της εποχής του Διαφωτισμού και «υπεύθυνος» για τον γερμανικό ιδεαλισμό, ο Καντ (Πρωσία, 1724-1804) είναι γνωστός για τις τρεις περίφημες κριτικές του: Η κριτική του Καθαρού Λόγου (1781), Η Κριτική του Πρακτικού Λόγου (1788), Η κριτική της Κριτικής Δύναμης (1790).

Ένθερμος θιασώτης του Νεύτωνα, θεωρείται ότι εισάγει την «κοπερνίκεια στροφή» στη φιλοσοφία. Όσον αφορά την επιστημολογία του ενδιαφέρεται να γνωρίσει τον κόσμο των φαινομένων. Δηλαδή τα πράγματα που διέπουν τον κόσμο, ακριβώς όπως φαίνονται στον άνθρωπο και σχετίζονται με αιτιακές σχέσεις: αυτός είναι ο «καθαρός Λόγος» όπου μπορεί να βασιστεί η επιστήμη. Δεν τον ενδιαφέρουν τα πράγματα όπως είναι «καθαυτά». Δεν υπάρχει χώρος για τη μεταφυσική των πραγμάτων. Η καινοτομία του αφορά την υπέρβαση του δίπολου εμπειρισμός / ορθολογισμός, εισάγοντας την υπερβατoλογική Λογική και την υπερβατολογική Αισθητότητα. Η Λογική χρειάζεται εμπειρικά δεδομένα (το αδιαμόρφωτο πολλαπλό υλικό της εμπειρίας) και η Αισθητότητα χρειάζεται προεμπειρικούς όρους (τις a priori μορφές εποπτείας και κατηγορίες). Δε μπορεί να αποκτηθεί επιστημονική γνώση με βάση μόνο τη νοησιαρχία ή την αισθησιοκρατία.

Έρχεται αντιμέτωπος με την εξής αντίφαση: αν ο κόσμος όπως τoν γνωρίζουμε φαινομενολογικά βασίζεται στην αιτιότητα και είναι ντετερμινιστικός, από που προκύπτει η δυνατότητα της ηθικής;

Σ' έναν κόσμο αιτιότητας «όταν βροντήξει, θα βρέξει». Και «όταν πεινάσω θα φροντίσω να τραφώ». Όταν ένα ζώο πεινάσει, μπορεί να σκοτώσει ένα άλλο ζώο για να τραφεί, το προστάζει η ίδια η φύση του. Όταν ένας άνθρωπος πεινάσει, μπορεί να σκοτώσει έναν άλλο άνθρωπο για να τραφεί εάν δεν έχει άλλη επιλογή; Εκεί θα λέγαμε ότι αναδύεται η ηθική.

Βεβαίως προκύπτουν πιο σύνθετα ζητήματα και ερωτήματα από αυτά τα απλοϊκά παραδείγματα. Γίνεται κατανοητό όμως πως ο Καντ πρέπει να ξεπεράσει τον αιτιοκρατούμενο «καθαρό Λόγο» για να υποστηρίξει το σύστημα ηθικής του. Ο άνθρωπος πρέπει να χειραφετηθεί από τη φυσική αιτιότητα και να στηριχθεί στην ελεύθερη βούληση. Κι έτσι εισάγει τον «πρακτικό Λόγο». Ο Λόγος είναι πάντοτε ένας, αλλά διακρίνεται σε καθαρό και πρακτικό, όπου στον καθένα εντάσσονται διαφορετικές δικαιοδοσίες.

Σ' αυτό το βιβλίο, Τα Θεμέλια της Μεταφυσικής των ηθών, αναλύει ακριβώς το σύστημα ηθικής του.
Πρακτικά ο άνθρωπος γνωρίζει τα αιτιοκρατικά φαινόμενα, αλλά αναγνωρίζει και τον ίδιο του τον εαυτό ως ένα αυτόβουλο ον με θέληση και είναι η μόνη μεταφυσική (μη φαινομενολογική) γνώση που είναι αναγκαίο να γίνει αποδεκτή. Ως αυτόβουλο ον έχει δυνατότητα επιλογής των πράξεων του. Αυτή η ελευθερία είναι το βασικό συστατικό της καντιανής ηθικής. Δίνει στη θέληση τη δυνατότητα «να πράττει ανεξάρτητα από ξένα καθοριστικά αίτια» (σ. 106). Ελευθερία σημαίνει πράττω αυτόνομα, υπακούω στους νόμους που θεσπίζω ως έλλογο ον. Πρόκειται για νόμους που δε μου υποβάλλει η φύση ή κάποιος Θεός. Επιβάλλω στον εαυτό μου κάτι που ορίζω ως νόμο (ως καθήκον και δέον) και πράττω ηθικά.

Αυτός ο «ηθικός νόμος» που προϋποθέτει την ελευθερία του υποκειμένου, ανάγεται σε «κατηγορική προσταγή» που πρέπει να ακολουθείται σε κάθε περίσταση. Ο Καντ εξειδικεύει αυτή την προσταγή με επεξηγηματικές διατυπώσεις. Βασικότερη είναι το «οφείλω να ενεργώ πάντα με τέτοιο τρόπο, ώστε να μπορώ να θέλω να γίνει ο υποκειμενικός μου γνώμονας ένας καθολικός νόμος» (σελ. 45).

Το να πράττει κανείς σύμφωνα με τον ηθικό νόμο, να πράττει το καθήκον του, σημαίνει να επιδεικνύει καλή βούληση παρά τις όποιες δυσκολίες (αρνείται την εύκολη επιλογή και πράττει αυτό που πρέπει). Για τον Καντ έχει σημασία το κίνητρο της πράξης. Η αξία του χαρακτήρα φαίνεται όταν κάποιος κάνει το καλό από καθήκον. Αν κάποιος κάνει φιλανθρωπίες και πίσω από αυτή την πράξη το κίνητρο του είναι εγωιστικό για λόγους «κοινωνικού πρεστίζ», αυτή η πράξη είναι ανήθικη. Κίνητρο θα πρέπει να είναι το καθήκον του να βοηθάει κανείς τον συνάνθρωπο και όχι να τον βλέπει ως μέσο για να βελτιώσει τη δική του εικόνα, αλλά ως σκοπό. Το να πράττεις το καθήκον είναι σκοπός, όχι μέσον για επίτευξη προσωπική ωφέλειας. Επιπλέον, κάθε άνθρωπος είναι και ένας «αυτοσκοπός», δεν πρέπει να τον βλέπουμε ως μέσο. Μια ακόμα βασική διατύπωση της προσταγής είναι το «πράττε έτσι ώστε να χρησιμοποιείς την ανθρωπότητα, τόσο στο πρόσωπό σου όσο και στο πρόσωπο κάθε άλλου ανθρώπου, πάντα ταυτόχρονα ως σκοπό και ποτέ μόνο ως μέσο» (σ. 81).
Ο Καντ εξηγεί την «κατηγορική προσταγή» με διάφορα παραδείγματα, όπως το εξής: Αν μπω στον πειρασμό να δώσω μια υπόσχεση που γνωρίζω ότι δε θα μπορέσω να τηρήσω, τι οφείλω να πράξω; Δε μπορώ να πράξω βάσει της αρχής «οπότε αποκομίζω προσωπικό όφελος από μια υπόσχεση, δεν πρέπει να διστάζω, ακόμη κι αν ξέρω ότι δε θα την τηρήσω», διότι αν το κάνουν όλοι αυτό («καθολικός νόμος»), θα καταρρεύσει ο θεσμός της υπόσχεσης, επομένως η κατηγορική προσταγή δεν επιτρέπει κάτι τέτοιο (σ. 45-47).

Ο αυστηρός ηθικός φιλόσοφος καταλήγει στο «βασίλειο των σκοπών», όπου συναντάται η ένωση διαφορετικών έλλογων όντων υπό κοινούς νόμους. Σ' ένα «βασίλειο» όπου κάθε υποκειμενική βούληση αναστοχάζεται το πράττειν σύμφωνα με το καθήκον, δημιουργούνται οι συνθήκες μιας ιδανικής κοινωνίας (με προεκτάσεις ειρηνιστικές και διεθνιστικές, για παράδειγμα ο πόλεμος δεν μπορεί να είναι ποτέ αποτέλεσμα της κατηγορικής προσταγής). Τίποτα εμπειρικό και συναισθηματικό δε μπορεί να συσκοτίσει την ηθική της κατηγορηματικής προσταγής. Ο καθένας πράττει το δέον και απομακρύνεται από τις επιταγές του ωφεμιλισμού και του σχετικισμού που τον συνοδεύει. Κι επιπροσθέτως, «τίποτα δε βλάπτει περισσότερο την ηθικότητα, από την αντίληψη ότι αυτή προκύπτει από παραδείγματα» (σ. 53). Ως εκ τούτου ο Καντ χαρακτηρίστηκε αφηρημένος και αΐστορικός αφού δε δέχεται μαθήματα από τα παραδείγματα της ιστορίας, γι' αυτόν δεν υφίσταται το «πάθημα» που γίνεται «μάθημα», αφού το αναστοχαζόμενο υποκείμενο σκεπτόμενο ορθά και πράττοντας σύμφωνα με την κατηγορική προσταγή δεν πέφτει σε παθήματα.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 12, 2010 Silvia rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: ethics, 1492-1788, essential

First, this book will make your brain HURT. Seriously: I literally felt like my brain was melting within my craneum. The translation into English at least is almost impenetrable.

Second, however, if you really have a serious interest in ethics you should absolutely try read it, understand it, critique it. This work is one of the founding sources of modern ethical thought, along with its polar opposite Utilitarianism (JS Mill). Everything else that came after builds on it, reacts to it, or someho...more

like · see review

Sep 22, 2008 James rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is simply a great and surprisingly accessible book. Yes, this book requires more thought and deliberation than most others, but the end result is a deeper understanding of the nature of moral maxims, if one accepts what Kant has to say.

Observations of human behavior yield confusing and conflicting judgments, and so Kant turns to a non-empirical activity of thought, termed pure reason. Slowly and steadily, the "common sense" of moral knowledge is built up into a vast structure of pure reason...more

like · see review

Apr 26, 2013 Julian rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

As a rule, one really can't 'rate' Kant, or any of his works, as one would rate a book. His philosophy is not written to be clever, charming, or even enjoyable. It is written to impart his interpretation of a logical structure of ethics to those who would apply and experiment with those ethics. That being said, my rating for this book is solely a rating of the translation from German. To rate Kant himself is the job of a power much higher than any critic or even scholar. To understand Kant is ou...more

like · see review

Feb 19, 2013 Benjamin Guido rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: graduate-school-years, philosophical

For the person interested in moral philosophy, this is a book to read many times over--not because of how good Kant's philosophy is but because of his aims and approach in motivating morality and the depth of his project. I won't comment more on Kant's writing or philosophy except to say that this Groundwork is much more accessible than most of Kant's other famous writings. So if you're new to Kant, this is a great place to begin--but it is still a challenge to read. Using an edition with a good...more

like · see review

May 15, 2011 Kory rated it 4 of 5 stars

Although Kant's writing isn't always the most reader-friendly, his analysis of a very difficult subject is quite solid. He makes a few leaps in his reasoning, but makes a good case for his development of a "doctrine" of morals. Probably the most important result he claims is the categorical imperative: "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law". The book is less than 100 pages, and a very worthwhile read.

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (117)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

509 users

Non Fiction

65 users

Classics

24 users

Academic > School

11 users

European Literature > German Literature

10 users

Academic

8 users

Philosophy > Theory

6 users

Academic > Read For School

5 users

Academic > College

5 users

Law

4 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highligh...more Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher from the Prussian city of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He is regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe and of the late Enlightenment.

His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, a critical investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics and epistemology, and highlights Kant's own contribution to these areas. The other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which concentrates on ethics, and The Critique of Judgement, which investigates aesthetics and teleology.

Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed through epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources and limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality – which he concluded that it does – then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it is possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, and so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside of experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. And so the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind.

Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists and the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired through experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason.

Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists and empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding the Kantian system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.(less)

More about Immanuel Kant...

Books by Immanuel Kant

Critique of Practical Reason (Texts in the History of Philosophy)

Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals/On a Supposed Right to Lie Because of Philanthropic Concerns

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Foundations of th...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Groundwork of the Meta...

“Have the courage to use your own reason- That is the motto of enlightenment.” — 8 people liked it

“Enlightenment is man's release from his self incurred tutelage.
Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another.
Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another.
" Have courage to use your own reason" that's the motto of enlightenment .” — 1 person liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
avg rating	preview: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals Goodreads rating: 3.70 (4596 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60080.Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348612102l/60080.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/60080.Groundwork_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals by Immanuel Kant[/url]

Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (Texts in the History of Philosophy)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website