ON THE DERIVED FORMS OF THE LEADING PRINCIPLE OF THE KANTIAN ETHICS.
It is well known that Kant put the leading principle of his Ethics
into another quite different shape, in which it is expressed directly;
the first being indirect, indeed nothing more than an indication as
to how the principle is to be sought for. Beginning at p. 63 (R.,
p. 55), he prepares the way for his second formula by means of very
strange, ambiguous, not to say distorted,[1] definitions of the
conceptions =End= and =Means=, which may be much more simply
and correctly denoted thus: an =End= is the direct motive of an
act of the Will, a =Means= the indirect: _simplex sigillum veri_
(simplicity is the seal of truth). Kant, however, slips through his
wonderful enunciations to the statement: "=Man=, indeed every
rational being, exists =as an end in himself=." On this I must
remark that "to exist as an end in oneself==" is an unthinkable
expression, a _contradictio in adjecto_.[2] To be an end means to
be an object of volition. Every end can only exist in relation to a
will, whose end, _i.e._, (as above stated), whose direct motive it is.
Only thus can the idea, "end" have any sense, which is lost as soon as
such connection is broken. But this relation, which is essential to
the thing, necessarily excludes every "in itself." "End in oneself"
is exactly like saying: "Friend in oneself;--enemy in oneself;--uncle
in oneself;--north or east in itself;--above or below in itself;"
and so on. At bottom the "end in itself" is in the same case as the
"absolute ought"; the same thought--the theological--secretly, indeed,
unconsciously lies at the root of each as its condition. Nor is the
"absolute worth," which is supposed to be attached to this alleged,
though unthinkable, "end in itself," at all better circumstanced.
It also must be characterised, without pity, as a _contradictio in
adjecto_. Every "worth" is a valuation by comparison, and its bearing
is necessarily twofold. First, it is =relative=, since it exists
for some one; and secondly, it is =comparative=, as being compared
with something else, and estimated accordingly. Severed from these two
conditions, the conception, "worth," loses all sense and meaning, and
so obviously, that further demonstration is needless. But more: just
as the phrases "end in itself" and "absolute worth" outrage logic, so
true morality is outraged by the statement on p. 65 (R., p. 56), that
irrational beings (that is, animals) are =things=, and should
therefore be treated simply as =means=, which are not at the same
time ends. In harmony with this, it is expressly declared in the
_Metaphysische Anfanggründe der Tugendlehre,_ § 16: "A man can have no
duties towards any being, except towards his fellow-men;" and then, §
17, we read: "To treat animals cruelly runs counter to the duty of man
=towards himself=; because it deadens the feeling of sympathy for
them in their sufferings, and thus weakens a natural tendency which
is very serviceable to morality in relation to =other men=." So
one is only to have compassion on animals for the sake of practice,
and they are as it were the pathological phantom on which to train
one's sympathy with men! In common with the whole of Asia that is not
tainted by Islâm (which is tantamount to Judaism), I regard such tenets
as odious and revolting. Here, once again, we see withal how entirely
this philosophical morality, which is, as explained above, only a
theological one in disguise, depends in reality on the biblical Ethics.
Thus, because Christian morals leave animals out of consideration
(of which more later on); therefore in philosophical morals they
are of course at once outlawed; they are merely "things," simply
=means= to ends of any sort; and so they are good for vivisection,
for deer-stalking, bull-fights, horse-races, etc., and they may be
whipped to death as they struggle along with heavy quarry carts.
Shame on such a morality which is worthy of Pariahs, Chandalas and
Mlechchas[3]; which fails to recognise the Eternal Reality immanent
in everything that has life, and shining forth with inscrutable
significance from all eyes that see the sun! This is a morality which
knows and values only the precious species that gave it birth; whose
characteristic--=reason=--it makes the condition under which a
being may be an object of moral regard.
By this rough path, then,--indeed, _per fas et nefas_ (by fair means
and by foul), Kant reaches the second form in which he expresses the
fundamental principle of his Ethics: "Act in such a way that you at
all times treat mankind, as much in your own person, as in the person
of every one else, not only as a Means, but also as an End." Such a
statement is a very artificial and roundabout way of saying: "Do not
consider yourself alone, but others also;" this in turn is a paraphrase
for: _Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris_ (do not to another
what you are unwilling should be done to yourself); and the latter,
as I have said, contains nothing but the premises to the conclusion,
which is the true and final goal of all morals and of all moralising;
_Neminem laede, immo omnes, quantum potes juva_ (do harm to no one;
but rather help all people as far as lies in your power). Like all
beautiful things, this proposition looks best unveiled. Be it only
observed that the alleged duties towards oneself are dragged into this
second Kantian edict intentionally and not without difficulty. Some
place of course had to be found for them.[4]
Another objection that could be raised against the formula is that the
malefactor condemned to be executed is treated merely as an instrument,
and not as an end, and this with perfectly good reason; for he is
the indispensable means of upholding the terror of the law by its
fulfilment, and of thus accomplishing the law's end--the repression of
crime.
But if this second definition helps nothing towards laying a foundation
for Ethics, if it cannot even pass muster as its leading principle,
that is, as an adequate and direct summary of ethical precepts; it
has nevertheless the merit of containing a fine _aperçu_ of moral
psychology, for it marks =egoism= by an exceedingly characteristic
token, which is quite worth while being here more closely considered.
This =egoism=, then, of which each of us is full, and to conceal
which, as our _partie honteuse_, we have invented =politeness=,
is perpetually peering through every veil cast over it, and may
especially be detected in the fact that our dealings with all those,
who come across our path, are directed by the one object of trying
to find, before everything else, and as if by instinct, a possible
=means= to any of the numerous =ends= with which we are
always engrossed. When we make a new acquaintance, our first thought,
as a rule, is whether the man can be useful to us in some way. If he
can do =nothing= for our benefit, then as soon as we are convinced
of this, he himself generally becomes nothing to us. To seek in all
other people a possible means to our ends, in other words, to make
them our instruments, is almost part of the very nature of human
eyes; and whether the instrument will have to suffer more or less
in the using, is a thought which comes much later, sometimes not at
all. That we assume others to be similarly disposed is shown in many
ways; _e.g._, by the fact that, when we ask any one for information
or advice, we lose all confidence in his words directly we discover
that he may have some =interest= in the matter, however small or
remote. For then we immediately take for granted that he will make us
a means to his ends, and hence give his advice not in accordance with
his =discernment=, but with his =desire=, and this, no matter
how exact the former may be, or how little the latter seem involved;
since we know only too well that a cubic inch of desire weighs much
more than a cubic yard of discernment. Conversely, when we ask in such
cases: "What ought I to do?" as a rule, nothing else will occur to our
counsellor, but how we should shape our action to suit his own ends;
and to this effect he will give his reply immediately, and as it were
mechanically, without so much as bestowing a thought on our ends;
because it is his Will that directly dictates the answer, or ever the
question can come before the bar of his real judgment. Hence he tries
to mould our conduct to his own benefit, without even being conscious
of it, and while he supposes that he is speaking out of the abundance
of his discernment, in reality he is nothing but the mouth-piece of
his own desire; indeed, such self-deception may lead him so far as to
utter lies, without being aware of it. So greatly does the influence of
the Will preponderate that of the Intelligence. Consequently, it is not
the testimony of our own consciousness, but rather, for the most part,
that of our interest, which avails to determine whether our language be
in accordance with what we discern, or what we desire. To take another
case. Let us suppose that a man pursued by enemies and in danger of
life, meets a pedlar and inquires for some by-way of escape; it may
happen that the latter will answer him by the question: "Do you need
any of my wares?" It is not of course meant that matters are always
like this. On the contrary, many a man is found to show a direct and
real participation in another's weal and woe, or (in Kant's language)
to regard him as an end and not as a means. How far it seems natural,
or the reverse, to each one to treat his neighbour for once in the way
as an end, instead of (as usual) a means,--this is the criterion of the
great ethical difference existing between character and character; and
that on which the mental attitude of sympathy rests in the last resort
will be the true basis of Ethics, and will form the subject of the
third part of this Essay.
Thus, in his second formula, Kant distinguishes Egoism and its opposite
by a very characteristic trait; and this point of merit I have all the
more gladly brought out into strong light and illustrated, because in
other respects there is little in the groundwork of his Ethics that I
can admit.
The third and last form in which Kant put forward his Moral Principle
is the =Autonomy= of the Will: "The Will of every rational
being is universally legislative for all rational beings." This of
course follows from the first form. As a consequence of the third,
however, we are asked to believe (see p. 71; R., p. 60) that the
specific characteristic of the Categorical Imperative lies in the
=renunciation of all interest= by the Will when acting from a
sense of duty. All previous moral principles had thus (he says) broken
down, "because the latter invariably attributed to human actions at
bottom a certain interest, whether originating in compulsion, or
in pleasurable attraction--an interest which might be one's own,
or another's" (p. 73; R., p. 62). (=Another's=: let this be
particularly noticed.) "Whereas a universally legislative Will must
prescribe actions which are =not= based on any =interest= at
all, but solely on a feeling of duty." I beg the reader to think what
this really means. As a matter of fact, nothing less than volition
without motive, in other words, effect without cause. Interest and
Motive are interchangeable ideas; what is interest but _quod mea
interest_, that which is of importance to me? And is not this, in one
word, whatever stirs and sets in motion my Will? Consequently, what is
an interest other than the working of a motive upon the Will? Therefore
where a motive moves the Will, there the latter has an interest; but
where the Will is affected by no motive, there in truth it can be as
little active, as a stone is able to leave its place without being
pushed or pulled. No educated person will require any demonstration of
this. It follows that every action, inasmuch as it necessarily must
have a motive, necessarily also presupposes an interest. Kant, however,
propounds a second entirely new class of actions which are performed
without any interest, _i.e._, without motive. And these actions
are--all deeds of justice and loving-kindness! It will be seen that
this monstrous assumption, to be refuted, needed only to be reduced to
its real meaning, which was concealed through the word "interest" being
trifled with. Meanwhile Kant celebrates (p. 74 sqq.; R., p. 62) the
triumph of his Autonomy of the Will by setting up a moral Utopia called
the Kingdom of Ends, which is peopled with nothing but =rational
beings= _in abstracto_. These, one and all, are always willing,
without willing any actual =thing= (_i.e._, without interest):
the only thing that they will is that they may all perpetually will in
accordance with one maxim (_i.e._, Autonomy). _Difficile est satiram
non scribere_[5] (it is difficult to refrain from writing a satire).
But there is something else to which Kant is led by his autonomy of
the will; and it involves more serious consequences than the little
innocent Kingdom of Ends, which is perfectly harmless and may be left
in peace. I mean the conception of =human dignity=. Now this
"dignity" is made to rest solely on man's autonomy, and to lie in the
fact that the law which he ought to obey is his own work, his relation
to it thus being the same as that of the subjects of a constitutional
government to their statutes. As an ornamental finish to the Kantian
system of morals such a theory might after all be passed over. Only
this expression "=Human Dignity=," once it was uttered by Kant,
became the shibboleth of all perplexed and empty-headed moralists. For
behind that imposing formula they concealed their lack, not to say,
of a real ethical basis, but of any basis at all which was possessed
of an intelligible meaning; supposing cleverly enough that their
readers would be so pleased to see themselves invested with such a
"dignity" that they would be quite satisfied.[6] Let us, however,
look at this conception a little more carefully, and submit it to
the test of reality. Kant (p. 79; R., p. 66) defines =dignity=
as "an unconditioned, incomparable value." This is an explanation
which makes such an effect by its magnificent sound that one does
not readily summon up courage to examine it at close quarters; else
we should find that it too is nothing but a hollow hyperbole, within
which there lurks like a gnawing worm, the _contradictio in adjecto_.
Every value is the estimation of one thing compared with another; it
is thus a conception of comparison, and consequently relative; and
this relativity is precisely that which forms the essence of the idea.
According to Diogenes Laertius (Book VII., chap. 106),[7] this was
already correctly taught by the Stoics. He says: _τὴn δὲ ἀξίαν εἶναι
ἀμοιβὴν δοκιμάστου, ἢν ἂν ὁ ἔμπειρος τῶν Πραγμάτων τάξῃ ὅμοιον εἐπεῑν,
ἀμείβεσθαι πυροὺς πρὸς τὰς σὺν ἡμιονô κριθάς._[8] An =incomparable,
unconditioned, absolute value=, such as "dignity" is declared by
Kant to be, is thus, like so much else in Philosophy, the statement in
words of a thought which is really unthinkable; just as much as "the
highest number," or "the greatest space."
"_Doch eben wo Begriffe fehlen_,
_Da stellt ein WORT zu rechter Zeit sich ein._"
(But where conceptions fail,
Just there a WORD comes in to fill the blank.)
So it was with this expression, "=Human Dignity=." A most
acceptable phrase was brought into currency. Thereon every system of
Morals, that was spun out through all classes of duty, and all forms of
casuistry, found a broad basis; from which serene elevation it could
comfortably go on preaching.
At the end of his exposition (p. 124; E., p. 97), Kant says: "But how
it is that =Pure Reason= without other motives, that may have
their derivation elsewhere, can by itself be =practical=; that is,
how, without there being any object for the Will to take an antecedent
interest in, the simple principle of the universal validity of all the
precepts of Pure Reason, as laws, can of itself provide a motive and
bring about an interest which may be called purely moral; or, in other
words, how it is that Pure Reason can be practical;--to explain this
problem, all human reason is inadequate, and all trouble and work spent
on it are vain." Now it should be remembered that, if any one asserts
the existence of a thing which cannot even be conceived as possible, it
is incumbent on him to prove that it is an actual reality; whereas the
Categorical Imperative of Practical Reason is expressly not put forward
as a fact of consciousness, nor otherwise founded on experience. Rather
are we frequently cautioned not to attempt to explain it by having
recourse to empirical anthropology. (Cf. _e.g._, p. vi. of the preface;
R., p. 5; and pp. 59, 60; R., p. 52). Moreover, we are repeatedly
(_e.g._, p. 48; R., p. 44) assured "that no instance can show, and
consequently there can be no empirical proof, that an Imperative of
this sort exists everywhere." And further, on p. 49 (R., p. 45), we
read, "that the reality of the Categorical Imperative is not a fact of
experience." Now if we put all this together, we can hardly avoid the
suspicion that Kant is jesting at his readers' expense. But although
this practice may be allowed by the present philosophical public of
Germany, and seem good in their eyes, yet in Kant's time it was not so
much in vogue; and besides, Ethics, then, as always, was precisely the
subject that least of all could lend itself to jokes. Hence we must
continue to hold the conviction that what can neither be conceived as
possible, nor proved as actual, is destitute of all credentials to
attest its existence. And if, by a strong effort of the imagination,
we try to picture to ourselves a man, possessed, as it were, by a
_daemon_, in the form of an =absolute Ought=, that speaks only in
Categorical Imperatives, and, confronting his wishes and inclinations,
claims to be the perpetual controller of his actions; in this figure
we see no true portrait of human nature, or of our inner life; what we
=do= discern is an artificial substitute for theological Morals,
to which it stands in the same relation as a wooden leg to a living one.
Our conclusion, therefore, is, that the Kantian Ethics, like all
anterior systems, is devoid of any sure foundation. As I showed at
the outset, in my examination of its =imperative Form=, the
structure is at bottom nothing but an inversion of theological Morals,
cloaked in very abstract formulae of an apparently _a priori_ origin.
That this disguise was most artificial and unrecognisable is the more
certain, from the fact that Kant, in all good faith, was actually
himself deceived by it, and really believed that he could establish,
independently of all theology, and on the basis of pure intelligence _a
priori_, those conceptions of the Law and of the hests of Duty, which
obviously have no meaning except in =theological Ethics=; whereas
I have sufficiently proved that with him they are destitute of all real
foundation, and float loosely in mid air. However, the mask at length
falls away in his own workshop, and theological Ethics stands forth
unveiled, as witness his doctrine of the Highest Good, the Postulates
of Practical Reason; and lastly, his Moral Theology. But this
revelation freed neither Kant nor the public from their illusion as to
the real state of things; on the contrary, both he and they rejoiced to
see all those precepts, which hitherto had been sanctioned by Faith,
now ratified and established by Ethics (although only _idealiter_, and
for practical purposes). The truth is that they, in all sincerity, put
the effect for the cause, and the cause for the effect, inasmuch as
they failed to perceive that at the root of this system of Morals there
lay, as absolutely necessary assumptions, however tacit and concealed,
all the alleged consequences that had been drawn from it.
At the end of this severe investigation, which must also have been
tiring to my readers, perhaps I may be allowed, by way of diversion, to
make a jesting, indeed frivolous comparison. I would liken Kant, in his
self-mystification, to a man who at a ball has been flirting the whole
evening with a masked beauty, in hopes of making a conquest; till at
last, throwing off her disguise, she reveals herself--as his wife.
[1] To keep the play of words in "_geschrobene," "verschrobene,"_ we
may perhaps render them: "twisted ... mistwisted."--(_Translator._)
[2] A contradiction in that which is added. A term applied to two ideas
which cannot be brought into a thinkable relationship.--(_Translator._)
[3] A Chaṇḍāla (or Ćaṇḍāla) means one who is born of a Brahman woman
by a Śūdra husband, such a union being an abomination. Hence it is a
term applied to a low common person. Mlechcha (or Mleććha) means a
foreigner; one who does not speak Sanskṛit, and is not subject to Hindu
institutions. The transition from a "a barbarian" to a bad or wicked
man, is easy.--(_Translator_.)
[4] These so-called duties have been discussed in Chapter III. of this
Part.
[5] Juvenal, _Sat_. I. 30.
[6] It appears that G. W. Block in his _Neue Grundlegung der
Philosophie der Sitten_, 1802, was the first to make "Human Dignity"
expressly and exclusively the foundation-stone of Ethics, which he then
built up entirely on it.
[7] _V_. Diogenes Laertius, _de Clarorum Philosophorum Vitis, etc._,
edit. O. Gabr. Cobet. Paris; Didot, 1862. In this edition the passage
quoted is in chap. 105 _ad fin.,_, p. 182.--(_Translator_.)
[8] They teach that "worth" is the equivalent value of a thing
which has been tested, whatever an expert may fix that value to
be; as, for instance, to take wheat in exchange for barley and a
mule.--(_Translator._)