Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals

The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (short GMS) is a book by Immanuel Kant, published in 1785. It is the first basic font for Kant's ethics, which he published in quite old age of 61 years. Kant's actual writing on ethics is the Critique of Practical Reason. Their argument has already been developed in the GMS in fundamentals. This book was still under the reign of Frederick the Great.

The GMS was so quickly sold out in bookstores, that a year later a second, slightly revised and expanded edition was published.

Structure

That with a good 100 pages relatively short work is divided into the following sections:

Preface

Content

In the preface to classify into the system of philosophy, which is classical in the logic, physics ( natural philosophy ) and ethics ( ethics ) are divided. Logic is not only empirically, ie there are no judgments based on experience. Natural philosophy and ethics can also be purely rational, both empirically as. Unless they are purely rational, ie based solely on the results of cognitive performance without the influence of empirical intuitions, it is metaphysics. Metaphysics of Morals thus treats the moral, if it is purely rational and not been studied empirically. The moral teaching is intended to be free from speculation, according to Kant and based on objective principles. The GMS is a clarification of the question of the conditions of the possibility of Sollensaussagen and is therefore metaethical font.

Coinciding with the first sentence of the first section Kant poses a fundamental for its ethics assertion: "It is all over anything in the world, yes even to think out of the same possible, which are held without limitation might well, as a good will. " (BA 1,2). Kant gives to build with this font on the epistemological insights of the Critique of Pure Reason, to show a foundation for rational action. The justification for an act, which ought, can not be derived from being. So a justification for action can not arise out of the experience. The action is to rely solely on reason. It should be free of its alignment ago by sensuous motives, so all the motives that come from feeling and experience, such as the " common sense " or compassion. The reasoning for doing so must be available to every rational being, and necessarily, a rational law, ie. What is a good will, can not be governed by the affections of a subject, but must be universally valid. The general law of reason is therefore a formal law or principle with material content.

This law formulated Kant in a categorical imperative from which there are a total of five versions in the GMS:

The formulas express different aspects, but are otherwise equivalent for Kant. In the law of nature formula expresses that the categorical imperative is as universally valid as a law of nature. Humanity formula highlights a fundamental premise of Kant. Everyone wants are never treated for yourself only as a means but always as an end. Respect for each other man and his dignity, becoming the objective law. The autonomy formula points to another fundamental aspect of Kantian ethics. That man can decide what he does requires a certain self- will, which influenced the action. The will is autonomous only if he is not determined by others ( heteronomous ), but free. The kingdom of purposes, the ideal state that all people always rationally consider the other people as ends and act according to the dictates of morality.

In conjunction with the categorical imperative Kant also introduces the concept of a maxim. A maxim is a subjective principle of action for different cases of a sphere of life that a person chooses to then align their actions. Maxims are not spontaneous but well thought out. Thus, they are likely to give in specific situations a help in order to make decisions. One speaks in Kant also from a Maxim ethics. Whether a maxim conforms to the requirements of the categorical imperative, one can test. First, the question of whether I can wish that the corresponding maxim a universal law, will be answered in the affirmative. Only if a generalization is logically tenable, for example, I so wish no exception for myself, is a perfect, ie an absolute requirement before. If the maxim conceivable, but according to the usual standards not desirable, it is an imperfect ( in degree not certain ) Required. If we further differentiate whether the obligation exists against itself or against another, then there are four cases.

A perfect duty to oneself, for example, according to Kant, the prohibition to commit suicide, is because the man is naturally equipped with a will to survive and even for yourself an end in itself. Also perfect is the duty of others not to be fooled by a lying promise, for example, to borrow money that you can not repay in advance. Otherwise, the institution of the promise would not be effective, and above all the deluded would never agree. The liar would consider the deceived only as a means, but not as an end in itself. The human being has the duty to oneself, to keep themselves physically and mentally fit; but to what extent he does that, subject to its review. In this respect this obligation is only imperfectly. The situation is similar with the requirement of assistance. Basically, everyone is committed to it; because everyone would like, finally, that even he is helped in emergencies. But if someone directs his life to charitable work is up to him basically self.

The categorical imperative is indeed the basic rule for good behavior, but it is not sufficient, since man is not purely rational beings, but also inclinations and impulses has. For morally good action, a good will is required. Who wants to act morally right must fully take Good as a benchmark for his actions. The full Good Kant calls morality. Morality is an idea a priori, which can not be defined, but anyone can determine the content of its judgments.

If man always act according to reason, he would always do the moral good. Since man is but controlled by nature and by culture, inclinations and impulses, he sometimes has to overcome in order to do what is reasonable. Reason tells him what he must do to comply with the morality. Shall meet this is a duty, because man sees itself morally. The obligation is a duty in the people themselves not based on external norms, rules and laws, but on what man recognizes himself as the moral good. In general, the morale will lead the people to comply with the law, but often enough the moral law further than what is required legally. This means that action may be morally inadmissible even where such action is not prohibited by the law. Someone acts morally when he deliberately follows the moral law.

Reception

Over time, the Kantian ethics is criticized from many directions, but is still one of the relevant positions in the current ethical debate. Among the prominent critics of Kant, whose objections were sustained effect mainly include Schiller, Hegel and Schopenhauer.

On the criticism of Schiller, who had a high regard for Kant that pure rationality to morality is not sufficient, but that sensibility and reason, duty and inclination must be brought into harmony, Kant confirmed nor even in religion Scripture ( A 11, footnote **), that it is better to do with genuine joy his duty, however, the inclination can be given as a result, no impact on the duty, for which is subject to the absolute necessity. Natural inclinations are good in themselves, i.e. unverwerflich, and it is not only futile, but it would also be harmful and blameworthy to trying to eradicate them; they must rather only tame, so that they questioned among themselves not eradicate, but to bring together mood in a whole, called bliss, can be used. ( Ibid. A 63 /64).

Hegel holds head in front of empty formalism, which makes no claims as to the substantive content of morality. It overlooks Hegel, that already in the humanity formula for human dignity objective standard is. Also, the categorical imperative is only the test of maxims whose substantive content is to be measured against an objective criterion.

Schopenhauer's argument against the mandatory ethics Kant says that the so interpreted by him unconditional Shall be a substitute for the commandments of God and thus Kant holds up a moral doctrine in the logic of the Christian tradition. This position is also found in the recent discussion. Unconditionally it is not so far, as for Kant, moral behavior intentionally " dutifully " and "off duty" is done. Schopenhauer puts in morality on the compassion, whereas Kant would deny that he holds feelings as a basis for morality unacceptable, doing away with them may be wrong simply. Kant concludes the work with the formulation of the problem, so you should act at all morally: And so we do not comprehend the practical unconditional necessity of the moral imperative, but we understand but his incomprehensibility, which is all that reasonably known of the philosophy to limit of human reason in principle aims, may be required. (BA 128)

Cross-references

In the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals of the matter is addressed and by much of what is found later in the Critique of Practical Reason partly treated explicitly. The foundation is therefore suitable both as an introduction to the latter as to the exact understanding of the second critique is indispensable. With the practical ethics in its application and its principles Kant sets himself apart in more detail in the Metaphysics of Morals. The ethics with empirical content is found in the Anthropology from a Pragmatic intention. To understand the foundation of Kant's lectures held at the same time are often very useful ( Vol. 27 of the Akademie edition).

Expenditure

• Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Eds, inlaid. and explained. by Jens Timmermann. Cambridge University Press, Göttingen 2004, ISBN 3-525-30602-4.
• Immanuel Kant: Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals. Comment by Christoph Horn, Corinna Mieth and Nico Scarano. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 978-3-518-27002-8.