ࡱ> 1305@ bjbj22 . XXN  N?AAAAAA$Reez h? ?  K   $7] @c #0k ,  $6$  eeNN$r NNrHegels Criticism of Kants Moral Theory Wir sagen statt Tugend Moralitt, indem das, wonach ich mich in meinen Handlungen richten soll, nicht mein Wille sein soll, der zur Gewohnheit geworden ist wie in der Tugend: Moralitt enthlt wesentlich meine subjective Reflexion, meine berzeugung, da das, was ich tue, den allgemeinen, vernnftigen Willensbestimmungen, den allgemeinen Pflichten gem ist. Addition EPR 106: (Hotho) With right in the strict sense, it made no difference what my principle or intention was. The question of the self-determination and motive [Triebfeder] of the will and of its purpose now arises in connection with moralitythe worth of a human being is measured by his inward actions, and hence the point of view of morality is that of freedom which has being for itself. Hegels History of Philosophy Kant (B) 2, a) It is a great, most important determination of Kantian philosophy, that Kant traced back what is essential for self-consciousness, into itself as a principle, or in itself. Insofar as man seeks for this or that purpose a way of judging the world or history, what ought he make into the final purpose? For the will there is no other purpose (end) as that which it has made for itself, the purpose of its freedom. It marks a massive progress that this principle has been established, that freedom is the last axis on which mankind turns, the final summit which cannot be impressed by anything else, so that man lets nothing have authority over him insofar as it contravenes his own freedom. Hegels of the Critique of Emptiness of the Categorical Imperative The criterion of law which Reason possesses within itself, fits every case equally well, and is thus in fact no criterion at all. (3 319, Miller, p. 259) Hegels Critique of the Formalism of Kants Ethics I become immediately aware that such a principle would destroy itself if made into a law, for it would entail that there would be no deposits. (V 27) Property, simply as such, does not contradict itself; it is an isolated determinateness, or is posited as merely self-identical. Non-property, the non-ownership of things, or a common ownership of goods is just as little self-contradictory. (3 317, Miller, p.258; see also 2 460) The Critique of Formalism in Hegels Philosophy of Right However essential it may be to emphasise the pure and unconditional self-determination of the will as the root of duty - for knowledge of the will first gained a firm foundation and point of departure in the philosophy of Kant, through the thought of its infinite autonomy - to cling on to a merely moral point of view without making the transition to the concept of ethics reduces this gain to an empty formalism...From this standpoint, no immanent doctrine of duties is possible. One may indeed bring in material from outside and thereby arrive at particular duties, but it is impossible to make the transition to the determination of particular duties from the above determination of duty as absence of contradiction, as formal correspondence with itself, which is no different from the specification of abstract indeterminacy; and even if such a particular content for action is taken into consideration, there is no criterion within that principle for deciding whether or not this content is a duty... A contradiction must be a contradiction with something, that is, with a content which is already fundamentally present as an established principle. Only to a principle does an action stand in a relation of agreement or contradiction. But if a duty is to be willed merely as a duty and not because of its content, it is a formal identity which necessarily excludes every content and determination. (7, 253, PR 135R my emphasis in bold) With respect to property there is the law: Property should be respected; for the opposite cannot be a universal law. That is right. But the institution of property is presupposed; if it is not, it is not respected; if it is; it is. If I do not presuppose the institution of property then theft contains no contradiction; it is a completely formal determination. This is the flaw with the Kantian-Fichtean principle, that it is simply formal. Cold hearted duty is the last undigested lump in the stomach. (Werke 20 369) ) ; E " Q E#9;,;xyzŶ蜶hWWh,pCJOJQJaJh6Yh6Y56OJQJh6Yh6YCJOJQJaJh6Yh6Y6CJOJQJh6Y5OJQJh6Yh6Y6OJQJh6Yh6YOJQJh6Yh6Y5OJQJ4) " R Fr .r .r .r .r .r .r .r nr .r .r .r .r .r .r .r .r .gd6Ygd6Ygd6Ygd6Ydgd6Y,1h. A!"#$% @`@ 6YNormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH f`f 6Y Heading 2 $<5$7$8$9D@&H$56OJQJaJmH sH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R  Table Normal4 l4a (k@(No List0O0 WeYStyle1OJQJ>@> WeY Footnote TextCJaJ>*`> 6YEndnote ReferenceH*hC`"h 6YBody Text Indentx5$7$8$9DH$^CJOJQJaJ\B`2\ 6Y Body Text dhx5$7$8$9DH$CJOJQJaJT+`BT 6Y Endnote Text5$7$8$9DH$CJaJmH sH LoRL 6Y endnote text5$7$8$9DH$CJaJ !"& "&)"RF0000000p00h00000x000PFo{00o{00o{00 0`R  8@0(  B S  ?*-.349:@AJLQRUW]^abfjpq{|#%(),2569?JLXYlr}~;E+3_aim::::OEM4I b808^8`05o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.4I Ɠ        0VRQ_Vim2O.`ez;QA] -3X`rG $jG(t~h g 7 v< D O? p Ss / M S . 6%]D Vdt8PzYc} 4Bf|n`NBXR:zj/asGOl.2_ALi$+WFa07V m'yfflA H!PK!W!+"7"5#T#$,$2D$'Z$;%v%N &&&(/&|&^ 'E'P(ta(7))W)m){)*+7+8+o+,Ej,(m,;-j-`../V:/?/]S/r/(0G00=A0St2'3^83H3R3r{3z}34 558"5Ny5$6o6N7d=8N8|8lr9F;1<A8<z<o=(1>I>Q>n>\?6?f@?h?l?@p@'AR;AzA,{A,BCCNCgC+DDD$De:DYcD7EXEaE F4^F<G'GvIq-I@I&J*J:J0KD1KmKLL&VMNlN_-O3[O|O P NP=}P\RhMRLYRWfR62TXTyxT{T VV$VtVLWWWpAXYTWY_YdYWeYZCZO&ZDZkZ[$[._[ ] :]A]e]/0^<^c^_C`gak8bio{o pup,pqpyp12qqCq`qXr~rzsxttOtau v;v. w7wEwEwWw<]wxTx6y;yz _zgzb'{3M{^{7|M }(}>}L}`}Dt}m~/~V9~bD~=E~ij~+7_FA(u)3^:c8G k)3}?XA<=Qi[)Z7A^iG|p@MNRZQE]h)A.9IDe}B7. TM[ GwqK|(;lY;m1?Az  78E`ek! -)C]&O=IT_safIS mt;E_o ;a3 7AC ,.<vaw 7`T[$Xk;(Q1&)=x3V2k\B,nn _wFMO@`-<y_1q_G_j>HHWZ]$urJt! iejr:2K~VN-SOSd0]z` ;%GilYp6=|KFF3*WLh)F\6-EEGHJ'k>URN/]B*{EWHj$`Cw :M(wWI&# JA[x!Q4V nCF;QW< w)m>e&/XG4VZD]Pefk~CpvUXZk%@l3XQq0O7H$Zre-}o x%d=@w< y+l3>`broS GOU@bbtm*DQE %)>]ZB\yF`|$?W6bg|-)S?Bq)I/'ELLRt >WkuQcu}M) TA6Y[\dOs'Vhi@w_e1>xy0@((@%%((p@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial9Garamond"qhFFF|,|,$>4 3QH)?!(Hegel s Criticism of Kant s Moral TheoryOEMOEM Oh+'0 $0 L X d p|)Hegels Criticism of Kants Moral Theory WoegeOEMEMEM Normal.dottOEM2MMicrosoft Word 10.0@@xc6@ֈ7@ֈ7|,՜.+,0  hp  Your Company NamecA )Hegels Criticism of Kants Moral Theory Title !"#$%&')*+,-./2Root Entry F`[$741TableWordDocument. SummaryInformation( DocumentSummaryInformation8(CompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q