Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    From $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
    Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
    Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
    Ebook104 pages1 hour

    Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    By Immanuel Kant

    ()

    Switch to audiobook
    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals is the first of Immanuel Kant's mature works on moral philosophy and remains one of the most influential in the field. Kant conceives his investigation as a work of foundational ethics—one that clears the ground for future research by explaining the core concepts and principles of moral theory and showing that they are normative for rational agents.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherGood Press
    Release dateApr 10, 2021
    ISBN4064066465162
    Author

    Immanuel Kant

    Immanuel Kant wird 1724 in Königsberg geboren. Mit 16 Jahren beginnt er das Studium der Theologie, Philosophie und Naturwissenschaften an der Königsberger Universität. Jedoch erst im Alter von 46 Jahren erhält er eine ordentliche Professur für Logik und Metaphysik in Königsberg. Als wirkungsmächtigster deutscher Philosoph neben Hegel erlangt Kant schon zu Lebzeiten einen legendären Ruf. Er verbringt sein Leben alleinstehend und einem strengen selbstauferlegten Tagesablauf folgend, der Anlaß zu zahlreichen überlieferten Anekdoten bietet. Kant stirbt in hohem Alter von 80 Jahren 1804 in Königsberg.

    Read more from Immanuel Kant

    Related to Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    Related ebooks

    Philosophy For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • UNLIMITED

      Yes, Determinists, There Is Free Will

      May 16, 2019

      It’s not just in politics where otherwise smart people consistently talk past one another. People debating whether humans have free will also have this tendency. Neuroscientist and free-will skeptic Sam Harris has dueled philosopher and free-will def

      10 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Somebody’s Watching

      Jul 30, 2018

      Somebody’s Watching
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Battle Of The Titans

      Apr 23, 2019

      Battle Of The Titans
      5 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The End of Liberalism

      Jun 4, 2018

      The End of Liberalism
      7 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Science Should Stay Clear of Metaphysics: Meet the philosopher who revived anti-realism.

      Sep 8, 2016

      Philosophers of science are not known for agreeing with each other—contrariness is part of the job description. But for thousands of years, from Aristotle to Thomas Kuhn, those who study what science is have roughly categorized themselves into two ba

      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Conflict Of Self

      Sep 25, 2023

      The Conflict Of Self
      2 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Beyond The Veil Of Ignorance

      Apr 22, 2019

      Beyond The Veil Of Ignorance
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Zombies Must Be Dualists

      Oct 19, 2017

      David Chalmers, who coined the phrase “Hard Problem of consciousness,” is arguably the leading modern advocate for the possibility that physical reality needs to be augmented by some kind of additional ingredient in order to explain consciousness—in

      10 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Pop Goes German Philosophy

      Aug 1, 2017

      With their TED Talks, TV shows, and runaway best-sellers, a new generation of celebrity philosophers has made German philosophy more popular than ever. But are they ruining it in the process?

      11 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      News From Nowhere

      Sep 5, 2022

      News From Nowhere
      1 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What’s In A Game?

      Apr 30, 2018

      What’s In A Game?
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A Lesson of Virtue

      Jul 28, 2022

      Harvard Law School professor Adrian Vermeule recently launched his new book Common Good Constitutionalism. In last week’s edition of Beijing Review, Vermeule and John Pang, Malaysian senior fellow at Bard College in New York, described the shared cla

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A Perception Of Something

      Nov 7, 2020

      A Perception Of Something
      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Reality Ouroboros

      Sep 4, 2024

      “Among the roots of your classicism you must include your passions for the stars.” —Cesare Pavese, This Business of Living What is reality? And is there just one reality or many, perhaps infinitely many? And how should we describe these realities, wi

      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      The Universe Knows Right from Wrong

      Sep 9, 2020

      Most of us, most of the time, think and act as though there are facts about good and bad, right and wrong. We think the predatory behavior of Jeffrey Epstein was abhorrent, and that the political actions of Mahatma Gandhi were admirable. Moreover, we

      9 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      What’s Philosophy For?

      Aug 10, 2020

      What’s Philosophy For?
      4 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Is Matter Conscious?

      Feb 27, 2020

      The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will. Astronomers wonder wh

      12 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Is Matter Conscious?

      Apr 6, 2017

      The nature of consciousness seems to be unique among scientific puzzles. Not only do neuroscientists have no fundamental explanation for how it arises from physical states of the brain, we are not even sure whether we ever will. Astronomers wonder wh

      12 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Herbert Spencer’s Principle of Equal Freedom: Is It Well Grounded?

      Sep 1, 2020

      During the mid-to late nineteenth century, Herbert Spencer was the most widely read philosopher in the world. A large part of his appeal was owing to his ambition of providing a complete and comprehensive account of human reality based on scientific

      38 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      On Purpose

      Aug 10, 2020

      Before we delve into your ideas about free will, I think it would be helpful to clear up a few common misconceptions people often have about what philosophers are referring to when it comes to free will. Would you mind explaining what ‘free will’ mea

      19 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Why Science Needs Metaphysics: Science can’t tell us whether science explains everything.

      Oct 1, 2015

      Technology cannot keep pace with theoretical predictions about subatomic reality coming from physics. The same applies to our ability to observe the far reaches of the universe. Theory outstrips data and can become more extravagant with the claims it

      6 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      A Theory of Consciousness Can Help Build a Theory of Everything

      May 4, 2017

      For an empirical science, physics can be remarkably dismissive of some of our most basic observations. We see objects existing in definite locations, but the wave nature of matter washes that away. We perceive time to flow, but how could it, really?

      15 min read

    • UNLIMITED

      Neuroscience Weighs in on Physics’ Biggest Questions

      Oct 13, 2021

      For an empirical science, physics can be remarkably dismissive of some of our most basic observations. We see objects existing in definite locations, but the wave nature of matter washes that away. We perceive time to flow, but how could it, really?

      15 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals - Immanuel Kant

      Immanuel Kant

      Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals

      Published by Good Press, 2022

      [email protected]

      EAN 4064066465162

      Table of Contents

      Preface

      First Section: Transition from the common rational knowledge of morality to the philosophical

      Second Section: Transition from popular moral philosophy to the metaphysic of morals

      The Autonomy of the Will as the Supreme Principle of Morality

      Heteronomy of the Will as the Source of all spurious Principles of Morality

      Classification of all Principles of Morality which can be founded on the Conception of Heteronomy

      Third Section: Transition from the metaphysic of morals to the critique of pure practical reason

      The Concept of Freedom is the Key that explains the Autonomy of the Will.

      Freedom must be presupposed as a Property of the Will of all Rational Beings

      Of the Interest attaching to the Ideas of Morality.

      How is a Categorical Imperative Possible?

      Of the Extreme Limits of all Practical Philosophy.

      Concluding Remark

      Preface

      Table of Contents

      Ancient Greek philosophy was divided into three sciences: Physics, Ethics, and Logic. This division is perfectly suitable to the nature of the thing; and the only improvement that can be made in it is to add the principle on which it is based, so that we may both satisfy ourselves of its completeness, and also be able to determine correctly the necessary subdivisions.

      All rational knowledge is either material or formal: the former considers some object, the latter is concerned only with the form of the understanding and of the reason itself, and with the universal laws of thought in general without distinction of its objects. Formal philosophy is called Logic. Material philosophy, however, has to do with determinate objects and the laws to which they are subject, is again twofold; for these laws are either laws of nature or of freedom. The science of the former is Physics, that of the latter, Ethics; they are also called natural philosophy and moral philosophy respectively.

      Logic cannot have any empirical part; that is, a part in which the universal and necessary laws of thought should rest on grounds taken from experience; otherwise it would not be logic, i.e., a canon for the understanding or the reason, valid for all thought, and capable of demonstration. Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not.

      We may call all philosophy empirical, so far as it is based on grounds of experience: on the other hand, that which delivers its doctrines from à priori principles alone we may call pure philosophy. When the latter is merely formal it is logic; if it is restricted to definite objects of the understanding it is metaphysic.

      In this way there arises the idea of a twofold metaphysic- a metaphysic of nature and a metaphysic of morals. Physics will thus have an empirical and also a rational part. It is the same with Ethics; but here the empirical part might have the special name of practical anthropology, the name morality being appropriated to the rational part.

      All trades, arts, and handiworks have gained by division of labour, namely, when, instead of one man doing everything, each confines himself to a certain kind of work distinct from others in the treatment it requires, so as to be able to perform it with greater facility and in the greatest perfection. Where the different kinds of work are not distinguished and divided, where everyone is a jack-of-all-trades, there manufactures remain still in the greatest barbarism. It might deserve to be considered whether pure philosophy in all its parts does not require a man specially devoted to it, and whether it would not be better for the whole business of science if those who, to please the tastes of the public, are wont to blend the rational and empirical elements together, mixed in all sorts of proportions unknown to themselves, and who call themselves independent thinkers, giving the name of minute philosophers to those who apply themselves to the rational part only- if these, I say, were warned not to carry on two employments together which differ widely in the treatment they demand, for each of which perhaps a special talent is required, and the combination of which in one person only produces bunglers. But I only ask here whether the nature of science does not require that we should always carefully separate the empirical from the rational part, and prefix to Physics proper (or empirical physics) a metaphysic of nature, and to practical anthropology a metaphysic of morals, which must be carefully cleared of everything empirical, so that we may know how much can be accomplished by pure reason in both cases, and from what sources it draws this its à priori teaching, and that whether the latter inquiry is conducted by all moralists (whose name is legion), or only by some who feel a calling thereto.

      As my concern here is with moral philosophy, I limit the question suggested to this: Whether it is not of the utmost necessity to construct a pure thing which is only empirical and which belongs to anthropology? for that such a philosophy must be possible is evident from the common idea of duty and of the moral laws. Everyone must admit that if a law is to have moral force,i.e., to be the basis of an obligation, it must carry with it absolute necessity; that, for example, the precept, Thou shalt not lie, is not valid for men alone, as if other rational beings had no need to observe it; and so with all the other moral laws properly so called; that, therefore, the basis of obligation must not be sought in the nature of man, or in the circumstances in the world in which he is placed, but à priori simply in the conception of pure reason; and although any other precept which is founded on principles of mere experience may be in certain respects universal, yet in as far as it rests even in the least degree on an empirical basis, perhaps only as to a motive, such a precept, while it may be a practical rule, can never be called a moral law.

      Thus not only are moral laws with their principles essentially distinguished from every other kind of practical knowledge in which there is anything empirical, but all moral philosophy rests wholly on its pure part. When applied to man, it does not borrow the least thing from the knowledge of man himself (anthropology), but gives laws à priori to him as a rational being. No doubt these laws require a judgement sharpened by experience, in order on the one hand to distinguish in what cases they are applicable, and on the other to procure for them access to the will of the man and effectual influence on conduct; since man is acted on by so many inclinations that, though capable of the idea of a practical pure reason, he is not so easily able to make it effective in concreto in his life.

      A metaphysic of morals is therefore indispensably necessary, not merely for speculative reasons, in order to investigate the sources of the practical principles which are to be found à priori in our reason, but also because morals themselves are liable to all sorts of corruption, as long as we are without that clue and supreme canon by which to estimate them correctly. For in order that an action should be morally good, it is not enough that it conform to the moral law, but it must also be done for the sake of the law, otherwise that conformity is only very contingent and uncertain; since a principle which is not moral, although it may now and then produce actions conformable to the law, will also often produce actions which contradict it. Now it is only in a pure philosophy that we can look for the moral law in its purity and genuineness (and, in a practical matter, this is of the utmost consequence): we must, therefore, begin with pure philosophy (metaphysic), and without it there cannot be any moral philosophy at all. That which mingles these pure principles with the empirical does not deserve the name of philosophy (for what distinguishes philosophy from common rational knowledge is that it treats in separate sciences what the latter only comprehends confusedly); much less does it deserve that of moral philosophy, since by this confusion it even spoils the purity of morals themselves, and counteracts its own end.

      Let it not be thought, however, that what is here demanded is already extant in the propaedeutic prefixed by the celebrated Wolf to his moral philosophy, namely, his so-called general practical philosophy, and that, therefore, we have not to strike

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1