Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals/What is Enlightenment?

by Immanuel Kant

Analysis of the fundamental principles of Kant's ethical worldview and the requirements for self-determination.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction

92 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1785

About the author

Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century philosopher from Königsberg, Prussia (now Kaliningrad, Russia). He's regarded as one of the most influential thinkers of modern Europe & of the late Enlightenment. His most important work is The Critique of Pure Reason, an investigation of reason itself. It encompasses an attack on traditional metaphysics & epistemology, & highlights his own contribution to these areas. Other main works of his maturity are The Critique of Practical Reason, which is about ethics, & The Critique of Judgment, about esthetics & teleology.

Pursuing metaphysics involves asking questions about the ultimate nature of reality. Kant suggested that metaphysics can be reformed thru epistemology. He suggested that by understanding the sources & limits of human knowledge we can ask fruitful metaphysical questions. He asked if an object can be known to have certain properties prior to the experience of that object. He concluded that all objects that the mind can think about must conform to its manner of thought. Therefore if the mind can think only in terms of causality–which he concluded that it does–then we can know prior to experiencing them that all objects we experience must either be a cause or an effect. However, it follows from this that it's possible that there are objects of such a nature that the mind cannot think of them, & so the principle of causality, for instance, cannot be applied outside experience: hence we cannot know, for example, whether the world always existed or if it had a cause. So the grand questions of speculative metaphysics are off limits, but the sciences are firmly grounded in laws of the mind. Kant believed himself to be creating a compromise between the empiricists & the rationalists. The empiricists believed that knowledge is acquired thru experience alone, but the rationalists maintained that such knowledge is open to Cartesian doubt and that reason alone provides us with knowledge. Kant argues, however, that using reason without applying it to experience will only lead to illusions, while experience will be purely subjective without first being subsumed under pure reason. Kant’s thought was very influential in Germany during his lifetime, moving philosophy beyond the debate between the rationalists & empiricists. The philosophers Fichte, Schelling, Hegel and Schopenhauer saw themselves as correcting and expanding Kant's system, thus bringing about various forms of German Idealism. Kant continues to be a major influence on philosophy to this day, influencing both Analytic and Continental philosophy.

Reviews

[Liza Jane · Rating 5 out of 5]

The ends do not justify the means.
Instead, for something to be morally good it is done with good intent— not regarding the outcome.
“If [you] fully will the effect, you must also will the action necessary to produce it.”
When an outcome is concrete, there are definitive steps you can take to bring about that desired ends.
Happiness is not concrete. It is “an ideal of imagination not of reason.” Every person wishes to attain happiness, but can never define what he really wishes or will. Happiness means different things to different people at different times— we ourselves are not fully conscious of it. Because it is so indefinite, there is no specific way to attain it— nearly impossible to. (I’ll add that I think you achieve happiness at quite random times, that cannot be recreated, therefore no definition can be made and no steps taken to achieve again).

Our opinions change as our circumstances change.
“For man is affected by so many inclinations that, though he is capable of the idea of a practical pure reason, he is not so easily able to make it concretely effective in the conduct of his life.”

We must act according to the laws that we believe should be universal laws:: Treating humanity, ourself and others, as an ends and never a means. The will of every rational being is a will giving universal law.
Man “is subject only to his own, yet universal, legislation, and that he is only bound to act in accordance with his own will, which is, however, designed by nature to be a will giving universal laws.”
Humans impose their own laws on themselves, and act according to them. They do not need any special incentive or interest.
A will is a causality of humans being rational. “What can the freedom of the will be but the property of the will to be a law to itself?” Therefore, a free will and a will under moral laws are identical.
Reason must enable us to regard our principles as ourselves, free of outside influence or motivation.


Quotes that stand on their own:

One cannot validly judge others on the basis of his own feelings.

“Who can prove by experience the non-existence of a cause when experience shows us only that we do not perceive the cause?”

“A thing has no worth other than that determined for it by the law. That legislation which determines all worth must therefore have a dignity, i.e., unconditional and incomparable worth.”

“The essence of things is not changed by their external relations.”
“All conceptions, like those of the senses, which come to us without our choice enable us to know the objects only as they affect us, while what they are in themselves remains unknown to us”
“We can attain knowledge of appearances and never knowledge of things themselves.”


What is enlightenment you ask? Well Kant answers, it is “the courage to use your own reason.” It is easy to let others decide for you— laziness or fear is why many do not rely on their own judgments.
Those in positions of power, as well as a majority of the population, may lead you to believe it is dangerous to think for yourself. This way, they mollycoddle themselves. But, “if only freedom is granted, enlightenment is almost sure to follow.” It is hard at first to use your own reason, believe in your own ideas, but it gets easier as you are challenged and prove your strength to yourself.


“Our age is, in especial degree, the age of criticism, and to criticism everything must submit” Kant does not think we live in an enlightened age, but that we live in the Age of Enlightenment (as it was properly termed)


I am aware I cannot fully grasp the larger meaning of this work, yet I will not let that prevent me from taking what I have from it.

[Simon · Rating 5 out of 5]

'Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end never as a means only.'

This, the second formulation of Kant's extraordinary categorical imperative, remains radical today, just as it was revolutionary in 1785 when the 'Foundations' was published... reason informs us that we can never justifiably use another as an end for any of our needs, wants or desires no matter how urgent or pressing those might be - that autonomous, law-giving rational nature has inherent value and attendant dignity which must be categorically respected, without qualification or condition...

The late Lewis White Beck's well-known translation, first published in 1959 and used in many undergraduate ethics courses, remains first-rate, with a clear, concise introduction, a short overview of Kant's life, a helpful note on the text, and a selected bibliography...

Also included is one of Kant's more underrated pieces, his response to the question of enlightenment that was posed by a Berlin periodical of the day ('What is Enlightenment?')... Kant builds from Horace's 'Sapere aude' ('Dare to be wise!') castigating those who allow external authority to dictate to them ethically, and even, it would seem, ontologically...

Beck, with good reason, refers to the 'Foundations' as 'one of the most important ethical treatises ever written' - this classic translation is well worth many a read...

[gabi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kant at its best.

[fart · Rating 2 out of 5]

i deadass could not care less what the white man is saying-- you're ran through! you're tired! why am i reading this 500 years after it was published. i done knew.

[David Layton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is one of the most important documents of moral philosophy, yet was not intended to be be so. Kant wrote the treatise as a general introduction to moral philosophy, setting out the basic concepts that he would later expand upon in the "Metaphysics of Ethics" ten years later. Yet, that larger work lacks the historical influence of this "lighter" volume. One puts "lighter" in quotation marks because calling a Kant treatise of philosophy "light" no matter the length is like calling a composition by Mahler a "light" classic (thanks to Tom Lehrer for that idea). Even when Kant is writing supposedly for a non-expert audience, his prose is still formidable, which is to say that at times it is virtually unreadable. Kant sets a kind of standard of writing philosophy that runs through Hegel and on to Heidegger and thence to the post-structuralists, which is to write in almost pure abstraction, using long, subordinated sentences that use phrases to make distinctions between ideas. Often, these distinctions rest upon peculiarities of the language of the writing. The purpose of this book is to establish whether there are grounds for the idea of an objective morality, that is a morality that is not based on or subject to empirical facts and human dispositions, even when the morality has an explicit relationship to those things. Thus, Kant is writing about "metaphysics," or as he sees it "pure" ideas and "pure" reason. These are pure in the sense of being untainted by influence from empirical facts. For Kant, our ability to reason proves that the ability itself, which he calls "reason," exists prior to any use of it. Reason is a priori, and since morality is a kind of reasoning, it, too, must be a priori. But what kind of reasoning is it? Thus, Kant takes it upon himself to lay the groundwork (an alternative and perhaps more accurate translation of "grundlegung" than "foundation") for identifying just what pure moral reasoning would be, and for the primary justifications in favor of his theory. Even such a modest (in comparison to other of Kant's philosophical writings) endeavor requires Kant to disregard specific moral concerns, which he calls matters of psychology or anthropology, and regard mostly the "pure ideas" of morality. It was never going to be easy reading. Kant's method is to declare a definition of a key term, justify the definition, then move on to the next definition of another term that requires knowing the definition of the term previously defined. Definition builds on definition. If A definition is true, then B definition ought also to be true; by pure reason A definition is true; therefore, B definition is true. Then, repeat this process to derive C from B (and perhaps A as well), and so on. Because so many of these definitions are not simple, but instead rely upon definitions of abstractions using other abstractions, it is easy to become lost in what Kant is trying to do. Here is an example, selected almost at random, but certainly typical of Kant's style: "The hypothetical imperative which represents the practical necessity of an action as means to the promotion of happiness is an assertorical imperative" (p. 32, p. 416 in German collected works version, volume IV). Got that? The sentence forces the reader to return to early parts of the argument and get reacquainted with what "hypothetical imperative" and "practical necessity" and "happiness" mean in Kant's usage, and to puzzle out what he means by "assertorical." That such sentences are the norm rather than the exception makes reading this work daunting, even though it is less that 100 pages long. Thus, this work could not really be said to be entertaining, and few could be criticized for simply giving up in frustration. Nevertheless, the reward, and what makes this book so influential, comes from the conclusions that Kant makes through this process. His categorical imperative, especially the second formulation, and his claim that the basis for all morality is that rational beings must treat other rational beings as ends in themselves and not as means to ends, are difficult to defeat logically. The point is that he is not merely stating these propositions, he is justifying them in the sense of proving that they "exist" a priori as products of pure reason. This is the groundwork. So, the treatise is a mixed bag as far as a reading experience. It is often frustrating and tiring to read. However, it provides so much material for continued contemplation long after the reading is over that those who enjoy thinking about what they are reading will find a multitude of rewards.

[Serge · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am using this book to help my Debate students prrepare for National High School Ethics Bowl. Translator's introdction was key. I had never thought of "Kant's Platonism as trangely inverted." Beck notes that for Kant, our knowledge is confined within boundaries of possible experience; it is the noumenal world that s not known: it is only an object of rational faith. I love the fact that he takes head on the obection that "Kant's ethics may be good in theory but would not work in practice." I love the transition in the first section from good will to duty to prudence and the conclusion that " the moral worthof an action does not lie in te effect which is expected from it or in any principle of action which has to borrow its motive from this expected effect." This leads to the profound question " Would I be content that my maxim of extricating muself from difficulty by a false promise should hold as a universal law for myself as well as for others?" In the second section, Kant moves the reader to the categorical imperative which is restricted by no condition and supercedes happiness ("there can be no imperative which would command us to what makes for happiness because happiness is an ideal not of reason but of imagination, depending only on empirical grounds whch one would expect in vain to determine an action...") He concludes in the second section that "if there is to be a supreme practical principle and a categorical imperative for the human will, it must be one that forms an objective principle of the will from the conception of that which is necessarily an end for everyone because it is an end in itself." My favorite quote comes in this section ("Morality is the condition under which alone a rational being can be an end in himself, because only through it is it possible to be a lawgiving member in the realm of ends. Thus morality, and humanity so far as it is capable of morality, alone have dignity." ) Kant returns to the question of will and observes that "autonomy of the will is that property of it by which it is a law to itself independent of any property of the objects of its volition ." I find his rejection of perfection bold ("Among the rational principles of morality, there is the ontological concept of perfection. It is empty, indefinite, and consequently useless for finding in the immeasurable fied of possible reality the greatest possible sum which is suitable to us..") Again the translator's note on Kant's inverted Platonism is useful. In the Third Section, Kant turns our attention to freedom ("freedom must be presupposed as the property of the will of all rational beings"). I love the the circularity or tautology that he discerns with respect to freedom and self-regulation.

[Tatum · Rating 4 out of 5]

Despite the complaints of my entire Great Books class, I really enjoyed this work. I understand the frustration in his philosophy because it seems to have no implications on our everyday lives, but it's definitely made me more conscious of why I choose to act as I do. Plus, even though Kant most likely did not intend this, I could make a lot of spiritual connections, especially in the last section.

[Anna · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for Philosophy of Conscience.


I kant

[Jamie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dense in parts, but on the whole a fascinating exploration of the foundations of ethics. Having been interested in philosophy for many years without having read Kant, I now realize was like watching a mini-series starting with the second or third episode. I'm glad I rectified this. At some point, this'll need a second reading.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I must confess that I found the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals to be a difficult read. A densely written and lengthy treatise on a difficult subject, it was almost impenetrable to my cursory (and rather too disjointed) reading. Mercifully for the casual reader of philosphy, Lewis White Beck's introduction in conjunction with Kul-Want and Klimowski's Introducing Kant: A Graphic Guide provided enough information for my addled mind to interpret some of the content into comprehensible form (regardless of my inattention).

By comparison, What is Enlightenment? was mercifully short and understandable.

Sapere aude!

[Myron Davis · Rating 2 out of 5]

Short review: "Foundations" was a tedious read and seemed ill-reasoned at times, but after reading, I had neither the desire nor the energy to think about it further. Maybe at another time. "What Is Enlightenment?" was brilliant. I loved it and wish more read it and took it to heart.

[Chris Spinks]

Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals; What Is Enlightenment?; and a passage from The Metaphysics of Morals. translated and edited with an introduction by Lewis White Beck (1950)

[Fatih Gunes]

good job

[Ward Hammond · Rating 5 out of 5]

My college text.

[Steven · Rating 3 out of 5]

*sigh* Kant tires me. He was absolutely bloody brilliant, but he tires me. Oh well.