04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

OBJECTIVE INTUITION1SM 2O5<br />

establish contact with reality. In so far, in feet, as a man<br />

wills freely in accordance with the laws of his own n<strong>at</strong>ure,<br />

he it a member of the world of things as they are; th<strong>at</strong><br />

is to say, he walls as a member of reality.<br />

For, Kant points out, the feeling of moral oblig<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

is something which cannot be accounted for by an ex*<br />

anim<strong>at</strong>ion of the world of things as they appear. Psychology<br />

can tell us wh<strong>at</strong> we are and wh<strong>at</strong> we want to do; it cannot<br />

tell us wh<strong>at</strong> we ought to be and wh<strong>at</strong> it is our duty to do.<br />

Thus the conception of "ought" is on an entirely different<br />

plane from the conception of "is". It presupposes th<strong>at</strong><br />

when we have finished with our analysis of a man's antecedents<br />

and character, the analysis which tells us wh<strong>at</strong> he is,<br />

and how, in virtue of the fact th<strong>at</strong> he is wh<strong>at</strong> he is, he is<br />

n<strong>at</strong>urally disposed to act, we can still assume th<strong>at</strong> it is<br />

in his power to act differently. We can still say, 'Yes,<br />

I agree th<strong>at</strong>, given his heredity and constitution, he had a<br />

strong instinctive disposition to act in this way and every<br />

justific<strong>at</strong>ion for obeying his n<strong>at</strong>ural disposition; nevertheless,<br />

I still maintain th<strong>at</strong> he ought to have acted in th<strong>at</strong><br />

to have acted in th<strong>at</strong><br />

way", and in saying th<strong>at</strong> 'he ought<br />

way', we are also implying th<strong>at</strong> he was free to act 'in<br />

th<strong>at</strong> way', since it is nonsense to say th<strong>at</strong> a man ought to<br />

do wh<strong>at</strong> he cannot do. The consciousness of moral oblig<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

is thus "inextricably bound up with the conconsciousness<br />

of the freedom" of the self th<strong>at</strong> wills, which<br />

is the transcendental self. One knows, Kant insisted, "th<strong>at</strong><br />

one can act because one is conscious th<strong>at</strong> one ought, and<br />

thus one knows in oneself the freedom which without<br />

the moral law had remained unknown." It is for this<br />

reason th<strong>at</strong> Kant, in speaking of the oblig<strong>at</strong>ion to do one><br />

duty, employs the phrase "the c<strong>at</strong>egorical imper<strong>at</strong>ive".<br />

Whereas most of our actions are conditioned by an "if"<br />

ifwt want so and so* we must act in such and such a way<br />

and so are "hypothetically determined", the oblig<strong>at</strong>ion<br />

to do our duty is governed by no such condition. We ought,<br />

we feel, to da it, whether we want to do it or not, and we<br />

shall continue to feel this, even ifwe habitually fell to do it.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!