,*APT] #i 
,DEVELOPM5T ( ,MORAL ,TEA*+S 9 ! ,MOD]N ,]A 7,5D ( #a#h? ,C5TURY & ,BEG9N+ ( #a#i? ,C5TURY7 

#aibdaibd 

,PEOPLE 3 

,AU?OR 3 ,PET] ,KROPOTK9 

,TEXT 3 

  

,PHOTO BY ,ETOLANE1,C,C ,B,Y-,N,C-,N,D ,LIC5SE ,AS WAS PO9T$ \T 9 ! PREC$+ *APT]1 ! TEA*+S ( ! ,FR5* 
PHILOSOPH]S ( ! EI<TE5? C5TURY-,HELVETIUS1 ,MONTESQUIEU1 ,VOLTAIRE1 ( ! 
,5CYCLOPA$I/S ,DID]OT & D',ALEMB]T1 & ( ,HOLBA*1-PLAY$ AN IMPORTANT P>T 
9 ! HI/ORY ( ! EVOLUTION ( ,E?ICS4 ,! BOLD D5IAL BY !SE ?9K]S ( 
! IMPORTANCE ( RELIGION = ! DEVELOPM5T ( ! MORAL CONCEPTIONS1 !IR 
ASS]TIONS ( EQUITY  7AT LEA/ POLITICAL71 &1 F9ALLY1 ! DECISIVE 
9FLU5CE 9 ! ELABORATION ( SOCIAL =MS ( LIFE CR$IT$ BY MO/ ( !SE 
PHILOSOPH]S TO ! RATIONALLY 9T]PRET$ EMOTION ( SELF-9T]E/-ALL !SE 
FACTORS W]E ,V]Y IMPORTANT 9 =M+ CORRECT CONCEPTIONS ( MORALITY2 & !Y 
HELP$ TO BR+ SOCIETY TO ! REALIZATION ( ! FACT ?AT MORALITY CAN BE 
COMPLETELY LIB]AT$ FROM ! SANCTION ( RELIGION4 

,H[EV]1 ! T]ROR ( ! ,FR5* ,REVOLUTION1 & ! G5]AL UPHEAVAL ?AT 
ACCOMPANI$ ! ABOLITION ( FEUDAL RI<TS1 & ALSO ! W>S ?AT FOLL[$ ! 
,REVOLUTION1 COMPELL$ MANY ?9K]S TO SEEK ONCE MORE ! BASIS ( MORALITY 9 
SOME SUP]NATURAL P[]1 :I* !Y RECOGNIZ$ 9 MORE OR LESS DISGUIS$ =M4  
,! POLITICAL & ! SOCIAL REACTION W]E P>ALLEL$ 9 ! REALM ( PHILOSOPHY 
BY A REVIVAL ( METAPHYSICS4 ,?IS REVIVAL BEGAN 9 ,G]MANY1 :]E AT ! 5D ( 
! EI<TE5? C5TURY APPE>$ ! GREATE/ ,G]MAN PHILOSOPH]1 ,IMMANUEL ,KANT 
7#a#g#b#d-#a#h#d74 ,KANT'S TEA*+ IS ON ! BORD] L9E BETWE5 ! METAPHYSICAL 
PHILOSOPHY ( E>LI] TIMES1 & ! SCI5TIFIC PHILOSOPHY ( ! N9ETE5? 
C5TURY4 ,WE WILL N[ BRIEFLY SURVEY ,KANT'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY4#a 

,KANT'S AIM WAS TO CREATE A RATIONAL E?ICS1  I4 E41 A !ORY 
( MORAL CONCEPTIONS 5TIRELY DIFF]5T FROM ! EMPIRICAL E?ICS  
ADVOCAT$ BY MO/ ,5GLI% & ,FR5* ?9K]S ( ! EI<TE5? C5TURY4 ,KANT'S 
E?ICAL SY/EM WAS TO BE> ! SAME RELATION TO PREC$+ !ORIES1 AS 
!ORETICAL ME*ANICS BE>S TO APPLI$ ME*ANICS4 

,! AIM SET BY ,KANT WAS1 ( C\RSE1 NOT NEW4 ,ALMO/ ALL ?9K]S PREC$+ 
,KANT MADE ! 5DEAVOR TO DET]M9E ! RATIONAL BASES ( ,E?ICS4 ,BUT1 CONTR>Y 
TO ! ,5GLI% & ,FR5* ?9K]S ( ! SEV5TE5? & EI<TE5? C5TURIES1 
,KANT 9T5D$ TO DISCOV] ! FUNDAM5TAL LAWS ( MORALITY NOT ?R\< /UDY ( 
HUMAN NATURE & ?R\< OBS]VATION ( LIFE & ! ACTIONS ( MAN1 BUT ?R\< 
AB/RACT ?9K+4 

,REFLECT+ ON ! BASIS ( MORALITY ,KANT CAME TO ! CONCLUSION ?AT IT IS 
F\ND 9 \R S5SE ( DUTY4 ,?IS S5SE ( DUTY1 ACCORD+ TO ,KANT1 
ORIG9ATES NEI!R FROM CONSID]ATIONS ( UTILITY  7:E!R 9DIVIDUAL OR 
SOCIAL7 NOR FROM A FEEL+ ( SYMPA?Y  OR B5EVOL5CE2 IT IS A 
PROP]TY ( HUMAN REASON4 ,ACCORD+ TO ,KANT !RE >E TWO K9DS ( RULES ( 
CONDUCT ?AT HUMAN REASON CAN CREATE2 SOME ( !SE RULES >E CONDITIONAL1 O!RS 
>E UNCONDITIONAL4 ,= EXAMPLE3 IF Y\ WI% TO BE HEAL?Y-LEAD A MOD]ATE 
LIFE3-?IS IS A CONDITIONAL RULE4 ,A MAN :O DOES NOT WANT TO LEAD A MOD]ATE 
LIFE1 MAY *OOSE TO NEGLECT HIS HEAL?4 ,SU* PRESCRIPTIONS CONTA9 NO?+ 
ABSOLUTE1 & MAN MAY OR MAY NOT C>RY !M \T4 ,9 ?IS CATEGORY ( CONDITIONAL 
RULES >E 9CLUD$ ALL ! RULES ( CONDUCT 

 BAS$ ON 9T]E/1-& SU* CONDITIONAL PRESCRIPTIONS CANNOT BECOME 
! BASIS ( MORALITY4 ,MORAL RULES %\LD HAVE ! ABSOLUTE *>ACT] ( A 
CATEGORICAL IMP]ATIVE1 & MAN'S S5SE ( DUTY  CON/ITUTES SU* A 
CATEGORICAL IMP]ATIVE4 

,JU/ AS ! AXIOMS ( PURE MA!MATICS >E NOT ACQUIR$ BY MAN ?R\< 
EXP]I5CE1 7SO ?\<T ,KANT71 9 ! SAME WAY ! S5SE ( DUTY1 ) ITS 
9TR9SIC OBLIGATORY NATURE1 P>TAKES ( ! *>ACT] ( A NATURAL LAW & IS 
9H]5T 9 ! M9D ( EV]Y RATIONALLY ?9K+ CREATURE4 ,SU* IS ! QUALITY 
( 0PURE REASON40 ,IT DOES NOT MATT] ?AT 9 ACTUAL LIFE MAN NEV] OBEYS 
COMPLETELY ! MORAL CATEGORICAL IMP]ATIVE4 ,IT IS IMPORTANT ?AT MAN CAME TO 
RECOGNIZE ?IS IMP]ATIVE NOT ?R\< OBS]VATION OR ?R\< HIS FEEL+S1 BUT1 
AS IT W]E1 DISCOV]$ IT 9 HIMSELF & ACKN[L$G$ IT AS ! SUPREME LAW 9 
HIS ACTIONS4 

,:AT1 !N1 IS ! NATURE ( MORAL DUTY8 ,DUTY 9 ITS V]Y ESS5CE IS ?AT 
:I* HAS ABSOLUTE SIGNIFICANCE1 & !RE=E IT CAN NEV] BE M]ELY A 
MEANS  T[>D SOME O!R 5D1 BUT IT IS AN AIM 9 ITSELF4 ,:AT1 !N1 HAS 
AN ABSOLUTE SIGNIFICANCE = MAN1 & %\LD1 !RE=E1 BE HIS AIM8 

,ACCORD+ TO ,KANT1 0,NO?+ CAN POSSIBLY BE CONCEIV$ 9 ! WORLD1 OR EV5 
\T ( IT1 :I* CAN BE CALL$ GOOD )\T QUALIFICATION1 EXCEPT A GOODWILL10 I4 
E41 FREE & RATIONAL WILL4 ,EV]Y?+ 9 ! WORLD1 SAYS ,KANT1 HAS 
RELATIVE VALUE1 & ONLY A RATIONAL & FREE P]SONALITY HAS AN ABSOLUTE VALUE 9 
ITSELF4 ,!RE=E1 FREE & RATIONAL WILL1 POSSESS+ AN ABSOLUTE VALUE1 
CON/ITUTES ! OBJECT ( ! MORAL DUTY4 0,?\ MU/ BE FREE & 
RATIONAL10 SU* IS ! MORAL LAW4#b 

,HAV+ E/ABLI%$ ?IS MORAL LAW ,KANT PROCE$S TO D]IVE ! FIR/ =MULA ( 
MORAL CONDUCT2 0,SO ACT AS TO TREAT HUMANITY1 :E!R 9 ?9E [N P]SON OR 9 
?AT ( ANY O!R1 9 EV]Y CASE AS AN 5D )AL1 NEV] AS A MEANS ONLY40 
7,IBID41  P4 #d#g47 ,ALL M51 LIKE \RSELVES1 >E 5D[$ ) FREE & 
RATIONAL WILL3 !RE=E 

 !Y CAN NEV] S]VE = US AS MEANS TO AN 5D4 ,! IDEAL :I* 
MORALITY IS /RIV+ TO APPROA* IS1 ACCORD+ TO ,KANT1 A REPUBLIC ( FREE & 
RATIONAL HUMAN P]SONALITIES2 A REPUBLIC 9 :I* EV]Y P]SONALITY IS ! AIM ( 
ALL O!RS4 ,ON ?IS BASIS ,KANT =MULAT$ ! MORAL LAW AS FOLL[S3 0,ACT AS IF 
! MAXIM ( ?Y ACTION W]E TO BECOME BY ?Y WILL A UNIV]SAL LAW ( NATURE10 
7P4 #c#i47 ,OR1 9 ANO!R V]SION1-0,ACT ONLY ON ?AT MAXIM :]EBY ?\ CAN/ AT 
! SAME TIME WILL ?AT IT %\LD BECOME A UNIV]SAL LAW40 7P4 #c#h47 ,OR AGA91-0,I 
AM NEV] TO ACT O!RWISE ?AN SO ?AT ,I C\LD ALSO WILL ?AT MY MAXIM %\LD 
BECOME A UNIV]SAL LAW40 7,P4 #a#h47 

,! %ORT TREATISE 9 :I* ,KANT EXP\ND$ !SE IDEAS IS WRITT5 9 A SIMPLE 
& =CIBLE /YLE1 APPEAL+ TO ! BETT] 9/9CTS ( MAN4 ,IT CAN EASILY BE 
IMAG9$1 !RE=E1 :AT AN ELEVAT+ 9FLU5CE ,KANT'S TEA*+ EX]T$1 
ESPECIALLY 9 ,G]MANY4 9 OPPOSITION TO ! EUDEMONI/IC & UTILIT>IAN !ORIES 
( MORALITY1 :I* TAU<T MAN TO BE MORAL BECAUSE HE W\LD F9D 9 MORAL CONDUCT 
EI!R HAPP9ESS  7EUDEMONI/IC !ORY71 OR UTILITY  7UTILIT>IAN 
!ORY71,KANT ASS]T$ ?AT WE MU/ LEAD A MORAL LIFE BECAUSE SU* IS ! DEM& 
( \R REASON4 ,= EXAMPLE1 Y\ MU/ RESPECT Y\R [N FRE$OM & ! FRE$OM ( 
O!RS1 NOT ONLY :5 Y\ EXPECT TO D]IVE FROM IT PLEASURE OR UTILITY1 BUT 
ALWAYS & UND] ALL CIRCUM/ANCES1 BECAUSE FRE$OM IS AN ABSOLUTE GOOD1 & ONLY 
FRE$OM CON/ITUTES AIM 9 ITSELF2 EV]Y?+ ELSE IS BUT MEANS4 ,9 O!R WORDS1 
HUMAN P]SONALITY CON/ITUTES1 ACCORD+ TO ,KANT1 ! E?ICAL BASIS ( MORALITY 
& ( LAW4 

,?US ,KANT'S E?ICS IS P>TICUL>LY SUIT$ TO ?OSE :O1 :ILE D\BT+ ! 
OBLIGATORY NATURE ( ! PRESCRIPTIONS ( ,*UR* OR ,BIBLE1 HESITATE AT ! SAME 
TIME TO ADOPT ! VIEWPO9T ( NATURAL SCI5CE4 ,LIKEWISE1 9 ! CAMP ( ! 
LE>N$ SCI5TI/S1 ,KANT'S E?ICS F9DS ADH]5TS AMONG ?OSE :O LIKE TO BELIEVE 
?AT MAN P]=MS ON E>? A MISSION PR$ET]M9$ BY 0,SUPREME ,WILL10 & :O 
F9D 9 ,KANT'S TEA*+ ! EXPRESSION ( 0!IR [N VAGUE BELIEFS0 ?AT >E A 
L+]+ SURVIVAL ( =M] FAI?4 

,! ELEVAT+ *>ACT] ( ,KANT'S E?ICS IS 9DISPUTABLE4 ,BUT1 AFT] 

 ALL1 IT LEAVES US 9 COMPLETE IGNORANCE ) RESPECT TO ! PR9CIPAL 
PROBLEM ( E?ICS1 I4 E41 ! ORIG9 ( ! S5SE ( DUTY4 ,TO SAY ?AT 
MAN IS CONSCI\S ( SO L(TY A S5SE ( DUTY ?AT HE HOLDS HIMSELF OBLIG$  
TO OBEY IT1 DOES NOT ADVANCE US ANY FUR!R ?AN WE W]E ) ,HUT*ESON1 :O 
MA9TA9$ ?AT MAN POSSESSES AN 9H]5T MORAL FEEL+1 :I* URGES HIM 
TO ACT 9 ?IS DIRECTION-ALL ! MORE ?AT ! DEVELOPM5T ( FEEL+ IS 
UND5IABLY 9FLU5C$ BY REASON4 ,REASON1 TAU<T ,KANT1 IMPOSES UPON US ! 
MORAL LAW1 REASON 9DEP5D5T ( EXP]I5CE AS WELL AS ( OBS]VATIONS ( NATURE4 
 ,BUT1 HAV+ PROV$ ?IS DOCTR9E ) SO MU* F]VOR1 & AFT] TEA*+ IT = 
F\R YE>S FOLL[+ ! APPE>ANCE ( ! 0,CRITIQUE ( ,PRACTICAL ,REASON10 HE WAS 
F9ALLY =C$ TO ACKN[L$GE ?AT HE WAS COMPLETELY UNABLE TO F9D 9 MAN ! 
S\RCE ( RESPECT = ! MORAL LAW1 & ?AT HE HAD TO AB&ON ! ATTEMPT TO 
SOLVE ?IS FUNDAM5TAL PROBLEM ( E?ICS1-H9T+1 AT ! SAME TIME1 AT A 0DIV9E 
ORIG90 ( ?IS REG>D = ! MORAL LAW4 

,:E!R ?IS *ANGE ( VIEWPO9T & ?IS RETURN TO !OLOGICAL E?ICS WAS DUE 
TO ! 9FLU5CE ( ! AFT]MA? ( ! ,FR5* ,REVOLUTION1 OR :E!R ,KANT 
EXPRESS$ 9 #agib ! IDEAS :I* W]E ALREADY 9 HIS M9D :5 HE WROTE HIS 
0,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! ,METAPHYSIC ( ,MORALS0 & HIS ,CRITIQUE ( 
,PRACTICAL ,REASON10 IS A QUE/ION DIFFICULT TO ANSW]4 ,:ATEV] ! CASE MAY BE1 
H]E >E HIS ACTUAL WORDS 7USUALLY NOT CIT$ BY HIS 9T]PRET]S73 0,!RE IS1 
H[EV]1 ONE ?+ 9 \R S\L :I* WE CANNOT CEASE TO REG>D ) ! HI<E/ 
A/ONI%M5T1 & 9 REG>D TO :I* ADMIRATION IS RI<T OR EV5 ELEVAT+1 & 
?AT IS ! ORIG9AL MORAL CAPACITY 9 US G5]ALLY4 ,:AT IS IT 9 US 7WE MAY ASK 
\RSELVES7 BY :I* WE1 :O >E CON/ANTLY DEP5D5T ON NATURE BY SO MANY WANTS1 
>E YET RAIS$ SO F> ABOVE IT 9 ! IDEA ( AN ORIG9AL CAPACITY 79 US7 ?AT 
WE REG>D !M ALL AS NO?+1 & \RSELVES AS UNWOR?Y ( EXI/5CE1 IF WE W]E 
TO 9DULGE 9 !IR SATISFACTION 9 OPPOSITION TO A LAW :I* \R REASON 
AU?ORITATIVELY PRESCRIBES2 AL?\< IT IS ?IS 5JOYM5T ALONE ?AT CAN MAKE 
LIFE DESIRABLE1 :ILE REASON NEI!R PROMISES ANY?+ NOR ?REAT5S4 4 4 4 ,! 
9COMPREH5SIBILITY ( ?IS CAPACITY1 A CAPACITY :I* PROCLAIMS A 
,DIV9E ORIG91 MU/ R\SE MAN'S SPIRIT TO 5?USIASM1 & /R5G!N IT = ANY 
SACRIFICE :I* RESPECT = ?IS DUTY MAY IMPOSE ON HIM4#c 

,HAV+ ?US D5I$ ! SIGNIFICANCE1 & ALMO/ ! V]Y EXI/5CE 9 MAN ( 
! FEEL+ ( SYMPA?Y & SOCIALITY1 TO :I* ! MORAL TEA*+S ( ,HUT*ESON 
& ,ADAM ,SMI? GAVE SU* PROM95CE1 & EXPLA9+ ! MORAL FACULTY ( MAN BY 
! FUNDAM5TAL PROP]TY ( REASON1 ,KANT C\LD NOT1 ( C\RSE1 F9D 9 NATURE 
ANY?+ ?AT W\LD PO9T \T TO HIM ! NATURAL ORIG9 ( MORALITY4 ,HE HAD 
!RE=E TO H9T AT ! POSSIBILITY ( ! DIV9E ORIG9 ( \R S5SE ( MORAL 
DUTY4 ,& :AT IS MORE1 HIS REPEAT$ /ATEM5T ?AT ! S5SE ( MORAL DUTY IS 
9H]5T 9 MAN AS WELL AS 9 ALL 0RATIONALLY ?9K+ BE+S0 7:ILE ANIMALS 
W]E EXCLUD$ FROM ?AT CATEGORY7 LEADS US TO ?9K1 AS WAS ALREADY PO9T$ \T 
BY ,S*OP5HAU]1 ?AT 9 SPEAK+ ?US ,KANT HAD 9 M9D ! 0WORLD ( ANGELS40 

,IT MU/ BE ACKN[L$G$1 H[EV]1 ?AT BY HIS PHILOSOPHY & BY HIS MORAL 
TEA*+ ,KANT AID$ CONSID]ABLY ! DE/RUCTION ( TRADITIONAL RELIGI\S E?ICS 
& ! PREP>ATION ( ! GR\ND = A NEW1 PURELY SCI5TIFIC E?ICS4 ,IT MAY BE 
SAID )\T EXAGG]ATION ?AT ,KANT HELP$ TO PREP>E ! WAY = ! 
EVOLUTION>Y E?ICS ( \R TIME4 ,IT MU/ ALSO BE REMEMB]$ ?AT1 RECOGNIZ+ 
! ELEVAT+ *>ACT] ( MORALITY1 ,KANT V]Y JU/LY PO9T$ \T ?AT IT CANNOT 
BE BAS$ ON CONSID]ATIONS ( HAPP9ESS  OR UTILITY1 AS ! 
EUDEMONI/S & ! UTILIT>IANS ASS]T$4 ,MOREOV]1 ,KANT %[$ ?AT MORALITY 
CANNOT BE BAS$ M]ELY ON ! FEEL+ ( SYMPA?Y & COMMIS]ATION4 ,& 9DE$1 
NO MATT] H[ COMPLETELY ! FEEL+ ( SYMPA?Y = O!RS MAY BE DEVELOP$ 9 A 
MAN1 !RE >E1 NEV]!LESS1 MOM5TS 9 RIFE :5 ?IS HI<LY ,MORAL FEEL+ 
F9DS ITSELF 9 CONTRADICTION ) O!R T5D5CIES ( \R NATURE3 MAN IS 
COMPELL$ TO DECIDE :AT C\RSE ( ACTION IS TO BE TAK5 9 SU* A CASE1 

 & AT SU* TIMES !RE IS HE>D ! /RONG VOICE ( MORAL CONSCI5CE4 
,! FUNDAM5TAL PROBLEM ( E?ICS LIES 9 DET]M9+ ! FACULTY BY MEANS ( 
:I* MAN IS 5ABL$ TO MAKE A DECISION 9 SU* CONTRADICTORY CASES1 & :Y ! 
DECISION :I* WE CALL MORAL GIVES HIM 9N] SATISFACTION & IS APPROV$ BY 
O!R M54 ,?IS FUNDAM5TAL PROBLEM ( E?ICS ,KANT LEFT UNANSW]$4 ,HE M]ELY 
PO9T$ \T ! 9N] /RUGGLE 9 MAN'S S\L1 & HE RECOGNIZ$ ?AT ! DECISIVE 
P>T 9 ?IS /RUGGLE IS PLAY$ BY REASON & NOT BY FEEL+4 ,SU* A /ATEM5T 
IS NOT A SOLUTION ( ! PROBLEM1 BECAUSE IT IMM$IATELY LEADS TO ANO!R 
QUE/ION3 0,:Y DOES \R REASON REA* ?IS1 & NOT SOME O!R DECISION80 ,KANT 
RI<TLY REFUS$ TO SAY ?AT 9 ! COLLISION ( TWO OPPOS+ T5D5CIES \R 
REASON IS GUID$ BY CONSID]ATIONS ( ! USEFULNESS ( MORALITY4 ,( C\RSE1 
CONSID]ATIONS ( ! UTILITY ( MORAL ACTS = ! HUMAN RACE EX]T$ A V]Y 
GREAT 9FLU5CE ON ! DEVELOPM5T ( \R MORAL CONCEPTIONS1 BUT !RE /ILL 
REMA9S 9 MORAL ACTS SOME?+ ?AT CANNOT BE EXPLA9$ EI!R BY HABIT OR BY 
CONSID]ATIONS ( UTILITY OR H>M1 & ?IS SOME?+ WE >E B\ND TO EXPLA94 
,SIMIL>LY1 ! CONSID]ATION ( 9N] SATISFACTION :I* WE FEEL ON P]=M+ A 
MORAL ACT IS ALSO 9SUFFICI5T3 IT IS NECESS>Y TO EXPLA9 :Y WE FEEL SU* 
SATISFACTION1 JU/ AS 9 CONSID]+ ! 9FLU5CE UPON US ( SOME COMB9ATIONS 
( S\NDS & *ORDS1 IT WAS NECESS>Y TO EXPLA9 :Y C]TA9 COMB9ATIONS ( 
S\NDS >E PHYSICALLY PLEASANT TO \R E>1 & :Y O!RS >E UNPLEASANT1 :Y 
C]TA9 COMB9ATIONS ( L9ES & DIM5SIONS 9 >*ITECTURE PLEASE \R EYE1 
:ILE O!RS 0(F5D0 IT4 

,?US ,KANT WAS UNABLE TO ANSW] ! FUNDAM5TAL QUE/ION ( E?ICS4 ,BUT BY HIS 
SE>* ( ! DEEP] 9T]PRETATION ( ! MORAL CONCEPTIONS HE PAV$ ! WAY = 
?OSE :O FOLL[$ ,BACON'S SUGGE/IONS &1 LIKE ,D>W91 S\<T ! EXPLANATION 
( MORALITY 9 ! 9/9CT ( SOCIALITY :I* IS 9H]5T 9 ALL GREG>I\S 
ANIMALS1 CON/ITUT+ A FUNDAM5TAL FACULTY  ( MAN1 & =EV] DEVELOP+ 
9 ! C\RSE ( MAN'S EVOLUTION4 

,A GREAT DEAL HAS BE5 WRITT5 ON ,KANT'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY & A 

 GREAT DEAL MORE MI<T BE ADD$4 ,I %ALL LIMIT MYSELF1 H[EV]1 TO A 
FEW ADDITIONAL REM>KS4 

,9 0,! ,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! ,METAPHYSIC ( ,MORALS10 -,KANT'S 
PR9CIPAL WORK ON ,E?ICS1-HE FRANKLY CONFESSES ?AT WE DO NOT SEE :Y WE HAVE 
TO ACT 9 CON=MITY ) ! MORAL LAW1 09 O!R WORDS1 :5CE ! MORAL LAW 
D]IVES ITS OBLIGATION4 4 4 4 ,IT MU/ BE FREELY ADMITT$10 HE CONT9U$1 0?AT 
!RE IS A SORT ( CIRCLE H]E FROM :I* IT SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE TO ESCAPE4 ,9 ! 
ORD] ( EFFICI5T CAUSES WE ASSUME \RSELVES FREE1 9 ORD] ?AT 9 ! ORD] ( 
5DS WE MAY CONCEIVE \RSELVES AS SUBJECT TO MORAL LAWS2 & WE AFT]W>DS 
CONCEIVE \RSELVES AS SUBJECT TO !SE LAWS1 BECAUSE WE HAVE ATTRIBUT$ TO 
\RSELVES FRE$OM ( WILL40#d ,KANT ATTEMPT$ TO RECTIFY ?IS SEEM+ LOGICAL ]ROR 
BY AN EXPLANATION :I* CON/ITUTES ! ESS5CE ( HIS PHILOSOPHY ( KN[L$GE4 
,REASON1 SAID ,KANT1 /&S NOT ONLY ABOVE FEEL+ BUT ALSO ABOVE KN[L$GE1 = IT 
CONTA9S SOME?+ GREAT] ?AN ?AT :I* \R S5SES GIVE US3 0,REASON %[S SO 
PURE A SPONTANEITY 9 ! CASE ( :AT ,I CALL IDEAS 7,IDEAL ,CONCEPTIONS7 ?AT IT 
!REBY F> TRANSC5DS EV]Y?+ ?AT ! S5SIBILITY CAN GIVE IT1 & EXHIBITS 
ITS MO/ IMPORTANT FUNCTION 9 DI/+UI%+ ! WORLD ( S5SE FROM ?AT ( 
UND]/&+1 & !REBY PRESCRIB+ ! LIMITS ( ! UND]/&+ ITSELF40 
7,IBID41 P4 #g#a47 0,:5 WE CONCEIVE \RSELVES AS FREE WE TRANSF] \RSELVES 
9TO ! WORLD ( UND]/&+ AS MEMB]S ( IT1 & RECOGNIZE ! AUTONOMY ( 
! WILL ) ITS CONSEQU5CE1 MORALITY2 :]EAS IF WE CONCEIVE \RSELVES AS 
UND] OBLIGATION1 WE CONSID] \RSELVES AS BELONG+ TO ! WORLD ( S5SE1 & 
AT ! SAME TIME TO ! WORLD ( UND]/&+40 7P4 #g#b47 ,FRE$OM ( WILL IS 
M]ELY AN IDEAL CONCEPTION ( REASON4#e 

,IT IS OBVI\S ?AT ,KANT MEANS BY ?IS ?AT HIS 0CATEGORICAL IMP]ATIVE10 HIS 
MORAL LAW :I* CON/ITUTES 0! FUNDAM5TAL LAW ( PURE MORAL REASON10 IS ! 
NECESS>Y =M ( \R ?9K+4 ,BUT 

 ,KANT C\LD NOT EXPLA9 :5CE1 DUE TO :AT CAUSES1 \R M9D DEVELOP$ 
JU/ ?IS =M ( ?9K+4 ,AT PRES5T1 H[EV]1 IF ,I AM NOT MI/AK51 WE CAN 
ASS]T ?AT IT ORIG9ATES 9 ! IDEA ( JU/ICE1 I4 E41 ! RECOGNITION ( 
EQUITY AMONG ALL M54 ,MU* HAS BE5 WRITT5 AB\T ! ESS5CE ( ! ,KANTIAN 
MORAL LAW4 ,BUT :AT MO/ ( ALL PREV5T$ HIS =MULATION ( ?IS LAW FROM 
BECOM+ G5]ALLY ACCEPT$ WAS HIS ASS]TION ?AT 0MORAL DECISION MU/ BE SU*1 
?AT IT C\LD BE ACCEPT$ AS ! BASIS ( UNIV]SAL LAW40 ,BUT ACCEPT$ BY :OM8 
,BY ! REASON ( AN 9DIVIDUAL1 OR BY SOCIETY8 ,IF BY SOCIETY1 !N !RE CAN BE 
NO O!R RULE = ! UNANIM\S JUDGM5T AB\T AN ACT BUT ! COMMON GOOD1 
& !N WE >E 9EVITABLY L$ TO ! !ORY ( UTILIT>IANISM OR 
EUDEMONISM1 :I* ,KANT SO P]SI/5TLY R5\NC$4 ,BUT IF BY ! WORDS 
0C\LD BE ACCEPT$0 ,KANT MEANT ?AT ! PR9CIPLE GUID+ MY ACT CAN & %\LD 
BE READILY ACCEPT$ BY ! REASON ( EV]Y MAN1 NOT BY ! =CE ( SOCIAL 
UTILITY BUT BY ! V]Y NATURE ( HUMAN ?9K+1 !N !RE MU/ BE SOME 
PECULI> FACULTY 9 HUMAN REASON :I*1 UN=TUNATELY1 ,KANT FAIL$ TO PO9T \T4  
,SU* A PECULI> FACULTY DOES ACTUALLY EXI/1 & !RE WAS NO NE$ TO GO ?R\< 
! 5TIRE SY/EM ( ,KANTIAN METAPHYSICS 9 ORD] TO COMPREH5D IT4 ,IT WAS V]Y 
NE>LY APPROA*$ BY ,FR5* MAT]IALI/S1 & BY ,5GLI% & ,SCOT* ?9K]S4  
,?IS FUNDAM5TAL FACULTY ( HUMAN REASON IS1 AS ,I HAVE ALREADY SAID1 ! 
CONCEPTION ( JU/ICE1 I4 E41 EQUITY4 ,!RE IS1 & !RE CAN BE1 NO O!R 
RULE ?AT MAY BECOME ! UNIV]SAL CRIT]ION = JUDG+ HUMAN ACTS4 ,& :AT IS 
MORE1 ?IS CRIT]ION IS RECOGNIZ$1 NOT FULLY1 BUT TO A CONSID]ABLE EXT5T1 BY 
O!R ?9K+ BE+S1 NOT BY ! ANGELS AS ,KANT 9TIMAT$1 BUT BY MANY SOCIAL 
ANIMALS4 ,IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EXPLA9 ?IS FACULTY ( \R REASON 9 ANY O!R WAY 
?AN 9 CONNECTION ) ! PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPM5T1 I4 E41 ! EVOLUTION1 
( MAN & ( ! ANIMAL WORLD 9 G5]AL4 ,IF ?IS IS TRUE1 IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO 
D5Y ?AT ! PR9CIPAL 5DEAVOR ( MAN IS HIS /RIV+ = P]SONAL HAPP9ESS 
9 ! BROADE/ S5SE ( ?AT WORD4 ,ALL ! EUDEMONI/S & ! UTILIT>IANS >E 
RI<T ON ?IS PO9T4 ,BUT IT IS EQUALLY UNQUE/IONABLE ?AT ! RE/RA9+ 

 MORAL ELEM5T MANIFE/S ITSELF SIDE BY SIDE ) ! /RIV+ = 
P]SONAL HAPP9ESS1 9 ! FEEL+S ( SOCIALITY1 SYMPA?Y1 & 9 ! ACTS ( 
MUTUAL AID1 :I* >E OBS]V$ EV5 AMONG ! ANIMALS4 ,ORIG9AT+ P>TLY 9 
FRAT]NAL FEEL+1 & P>TLY 9 REASON1 !Y DEVELOP TOGE!R ) ! M>* ( 
SOCIETY4 

,KANTIAN CRITIQUE UNQUE/IONABLY AWAK5$ ! CONSCI5CE ( ,G]MAN SOCIETY & 
HELP$ IT TO LIVE ?R\< A CRITICAL P]IOD4 ,BUT IT DID NOT 5ABLE ,KANT TO LOOK 
DEEP] 9TO ! BASES ( ,G]MAN SOCIALITY4 

,AFT] ,GOE!'S PAN!ISM1 ,KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY CALL$ SOCIETY BACK TO ! 
SUP]NATURAL EXPLANATION ( ! MORAL CONSCI5CE1 & URG$ IT AWAY1 AS FROM A 
DANG]\S PA?1 FROM SEEK+ ! FUNDAM5TAL PR9CIPLE ( MORALITY 9 NATURAL 
CAUSES & 9 GRADUAL DEVELOPM5T1 -AN EXPLANATION :I* ! ,FR5* ?9K]S ( 
! EI<TE5? C5TURY W]E APPROA*+4 

,G5]ALLY SPEAK+1 ! MODEM ADMIR]S ( ,KANT W\LD DO WELL TO DEEP5 & TO 
EXT5D ! MORAL PHILOSOPHY ( !IR TEA*]4 ,( C\RSE IT IS DESIRABLE ?AT 
0! MAXIM ( \R ACTION %\LD BECOME A UNIV]SAL LAW40 ,BUT DID ,KANT DISCOV] 
?IS LAW8 ,WE SAW1 9 ALL ! MORAL TEA*+S ( ! UTILIT>IANS & ! 
EUDEMONI/S1 ?AT ! COMMON GOOD IS RECOGNIZ$ AS ! BASIS ( MORAL CONDUCT4 
,! :OLE QUE/ION IS1 :AT IS TO BE REG>D$ AS ! COMMON GOOD8 ,& ,KANT 
DID NOT EV5 LOOK = AN ANSW] TO ?IS FUNDAM5TAL E?ICAL QUE/ION :I* SO 
DEEPLY CONC]N$ ,R\SSEAU & O!R ,FR5* WRIT]S BE=E ! ,GREAT ,REVOLUTION1 
& ALSO SOME ,SCOT* & ,5GLI% ?9K]S4 ,KANT RE/$ CONT5T ) H9T+ AT 
,DIV9E ,WILL & FAI? 9 A FUTURE LIFE4 

,AS REG>DS ,KANT'S SECOND =MULA3 0,SO ACT AS TO TREAT HUMANITY :E!R 9 
?9E [N P]SON OR 9 ?AT ( ANY O!R 9 EV]Y CASE AS AN 5D )AL1 NEV] 
AS A MEANS ONLY10-PUTT+ IT MORE SIMPLY ONE C\LD SAY3 0,9 ALL QUE/IONS 
CONC]N+ SOCIETY BE> 9 M9D NOT ONLY Y\R [N1 BUT ALSO SOCIAL 
9T]E/S40 

,BUT ?IS ELEM5T ( DIS9T]E/$NESS1 UPON :I* ,KANT 9SI/$ SO /RONGLY1 
& 9 ! EXPOSITION ( :I* HE SAW HIS GREAT PHILOSOPHICAL 
A*IEVEM5T1-?IS ELEM5T IS AS OLD AS E?ICS ITSELF4 ,IT WAS ALREADY ! OBJECT 
( DISPUTE BETWE5 ! ,/OICS & ! ,EPICUREANS 9 ,ANCI5T ,GREECE1 & 9 ! 
SEV5TE5? C5TURY BETWE5 ! 9TELLECTUALI/S & ,HOBBES1 ,LOCKE1 ,HUME1 ETC4  
,MOREOV]1 ,KANT'S =MULA IS 9CORRECT 9 ITSELF4 ,MAN BECOMES TRULY MORAL NOT 
:5 HE OBEYS ! COMM& ( ! LAW1 :I* HE CONSID]S DIV9E1 & NOT :5 HIS 
?9K+ IS T+$ ) ! M]C5>Y ELEM5T ( 0HOPE & FE>10-:I* IS ,KANT'S 
REF]5CE TO ! FUTURE LIFE2 #f MAN IS MORAL ONLY :5 HIS MORAL ACTS HAVE BECOME 
SECOND NATURE ) HIM4 

,KANT1 AS WAS PO9T$ \T BY ,PAULS51 ?\<T WELL ( ! POPUL> MASSES AMONG 
:I* !RE MANIFE/S ITSELF1 AT TIMES MORE FREQU5TLY ?AN AMONG ! $UCAT$ 
CLASSES1 /RONG & SIMPLE FIDELITY TO DUTY4 ,BUT HE DID NOT RISE TO A 
RECOGNITION ( ! SOCIAL EQUALITY ( ! POPUL> MASSES ) ! O!R CLASSES4 
,:ILE SPEAK+ SO ALLUR+LY AB\T ! S5SE ( DUTY1 & DEM&+1 9 EFFECT1 
?AT EV]YONE CONSID] HIS ACTION T[>D O!RS AS AN ACT ?AT IS DESIRABLE 
= ALL ) RESPECT TO ALL1 HE DID NOT D>E TO UTT] ! PR9CIPLE 
PROCLAIM$ BY ,R\SSEAU & BY ! ,5CYCLOPA$I/S1 & :I* ! ,REVOLUTION HAD 
JU/ WRITT5 ON ITS BANN]S3-I4 E41 HUMAN EQUALITY4 ,HE LACK$ ?IS BRAVE 
CONSI/5CY4 ,HE SAW ! VALUE ( ,R\SSEAU'S TEA*+S 9 !IR SECOND>Y 
CONSEQU5CES & NOT 9 !IR FUNDAM5TAL ESS5CE-! APPEAL TO JU/ICE4  
,SIMIL>LY1 9 RANK+ SO HI< ! CONCEPTION ( DUTY ,KANT DID NOT ASK HIMSELF3 
0:5CE ?IS RESPECT80 ,HE FAIL$ TO GO BEYOND ! WORDS1-0UNIV]SAL LAW10-)\T 
ATTEMPT+ TO F9D SOME O!R CAUSE = ! REG>D = ?IS LAW1 EXCEPT ITS 
POSSIBLE UNIV]SALITY4 ,& F9ALLY1 AL?\< ! APPLICATION ( ANY RULE TO 
ALL M5 )\T EXCEPTION LEADS UNAVOIDABLY TO ! CONCEPTION ( ! 
EQUALITY ( ALL M51 HE NEV] CAME TO ?IS 9EVITABLE 

 CONCLUSION & PLAC$ HIS E?ICS UND] ! PROTECTION ( A ,SUPREME 
,BE+4 

,ALL !SE CONSID]ATIONS S]VE FUR!R TO CONFIRM \R EXPLANATION ( ! 
ORIG9 ( ,KANTIAN E?ICS4 ,HE SAW 9 ! MORAL LOOS5ESS (4 SOCIETIES AT ! 5D 
( ! EI<TE5? C5TURY ! P]NICI\S 9FLU5CE ( ! ,ANGLO-,SCOT* 
PHILOSOPH]S & ( ! ,FR5* ,5CYCLOPA$I/S4 ,HE WI%ES TO REE/ABLI% 
RESPECT = DUTY1 :I* HAD BE5 DEVELOP+ 9 ! HUMAN RACE UND] ! 9FLU5CE 
( RELIGION1 & HE ATTEMPT$ TO ACCOMPLI% ?IS 9 HIS E?ICS4 

,ONE NE$ H>DLY DWELL H]E ON ! EXT5T TO :I* ,KANTIAN PHILOSOPHY1 UND] 
! PRET5SE ( SOCIAL GOOD1 AID$ ! SUPRESSION 9 ,G]MANY ( ! PHILOSOPHY ( 
! DEVELOPM5T ( P]SONALITY4 ,?IS PO9T HAS BE5 SUFFICI5TLY 
DISCUSS$ BY A MAJORITY ( S]I\S CRITICS ( ,KANT'S PHILOSOPHY1-VIZ41 ,WUNDT1 
,PAULS51 ,JODL1 & MANY O!RS4#g 

0,KANT'S IMMORTAL A*IEVEM5T10 WROTE ,GOE!1 0WAS ! FACT ?AT HE L$ US \T 
FROM ! /ATE ( FLABB9ESS 9TO :I* WE HAD SUNK40 ,& TRULY1 HIS E?ICS 
UND\BT$LY 9TRODUC$ A MORE /RICT & RIGOR\S ATTITUDE T[>D MORALITY1 9 
PLACE ( ?AT LOOS5ESS :I*1 :ILE NOT NECESS>ILY BR\<T AB\T BY ! 
PHILOSOPHY ( ! EI<TE5? C5TURY1 WAS 9 A MEASURE BE+ V9DICAT$ BY IT4  
,BUT T[>D A FUR!R DEVELOPM5T ( E?ICS & ITS BETT] UND]/&+-,KANT'S 
TEA*+ CONTRIBUT$ NO?+4 ,ON ! CONTR>Y1 HAV+ SATISFI$ TO A C]TA9 
EXT5T ! PHILOSOPHICAL SE>* = TRU?1 ,KANT'S TEA*+ CONSID]ABLY RET>D$ 
! DEVELOPM5T ( ,E?ICS 9 ,G]MANY4 ,9 VA9 DID ,S*ILL] 7[+ TO HIS 
FAMILI>ITY ) ,ANCI5T ,GREECE7 /RIVE TO DIRECT E?ICAL ?\<T T[>D ! 
REALIZATION ?AT MAN BECOMES TRULY MORAL NOT :5 ! DICTATES ( DUTY /RUGGLE 
)9 HIM AGA9/ ! PROMPT+S ( EMOTION1 BUT :5 ! MORAL ATTITUDE HAS 
BECOME HIS SECOND NATURE4 ,9 VA9 HE /ROVE TO %[ ?AT TRULY >TI/IC 
DEVELOPM5T 7( C\RSE1 NOT ?AT :I* IS N[ 

KN[N AS 0ES!TICISM07 AIDS ! =MATION ( P]SONALITY1 ?AT ! 
CONTEMPLATION ( >TI/IC BEAUTY & CREATIVE >T HELPS MAN TO RISE TO ! LEVEL 
:]E HE CEASES TO HE> ! VOICE ( ANIMAL 9/9CT1 & :]E HE IS BR\<T 
UPON ! ROAD TO REASON & LOVE = HUMANITY4 ,! ,G]MAN PHILOSOPH]S :O WROTE 
AB\T MORALITY AFT] ,KANT1 :ILE CONTRIBUT+ EA* HIS [N PECULI> PO9T ( 
VIEW1 CONT9U$1 LIKE !IR MA/]1 TO OCCUPY ! 9T]M$IATE POSITION BETWE5 
! !OLOGICAL & ! PHILOSOPHICAL 9T]PRETATION ( MORALITY4 ,!Y BLAZ$ NO 
NEW TRAILS1 BUT !Y GAVE ?9K]S C]TA9 SOCIAL IDEALS1 )9 ! N>R[ 
LIMITS ( ! SEMI-FEUDAL SY/EM ( !IR DAY4 ,AT ! TIME :5 9 ! FIELD ( 
MORAL PHILOSOPHY A S*OOL ( ! ,UTILIT>IANS1 HEAD$ BY ,B5?AM & ,MILL1 WAS 
MAK+ HEADWAY1 & :5 ! BIR? ( ! ,POSITIVI/ S*OOL ( ,AUGU/E ,COMTE WAS 
PREP>+ PHILOSOPHY = ! SCI5TIFIC E?ICS ( ,D>W9 & ,SP5C]1 ,G]MAN 
E?ICS CONT9U$ TO SUBSI/ ON SCRAPS ( ,KANTISM1 OR W&]$ 9 ! MI/S ( 
METAPHYSICS1 AT TIMES EV5 REV]T+1 MORE OR LESS OP5LY1 TO !OLOGICAL E?ICS4 

,WE MU/ SAY1 H[EV]1 ?AT EV5 IF ,G]MAN PHILOSOPHY ( ! FIR/ HALF ( ! 
N9ETE5? C5TURY1 LIKE ,G]MAN SOCIETY ( ?AT TIME1 DID NOT D>E ?R[ (F ! 
FETT]S ( ! FEUDAL SY/EM1 /ILL IT AID$ ! SADLY NE$$ MORAL REVIVAL ( 
,G]MANY1 9SPIR+ ! Y\NG G5]ATION T[>D A HI<] & MORE IDEALI/IC 
S]VICE TO SOCIETY4 ,9 ?IS RESPECT ,FI*TE1 ,S*ELL+1 & ,HEGEL OCCUPY AN 
HONORABLE PLACE 9 ! HI/ORY ( PHILOSOPHY1 & AMONG !M ,FI*TE IS ( 
P>TICUL> IMPORTANCE4 

,I %ALL NOT EXP\ND HIS TEA*+ H]E1 = ?AT W\LD NECESSITATE ! USE ( A 
METAPHYSICAL LANGUAGE ?AT ONLY OBSCURES ! ?\<T1 9/EAD ( CL>IFY+ IT4  
,H5CE ,I REF] ?OSE :O WI% TO ACQUA9T !MSELVES ) ,FI*TE'S TEA*+ TO ! 
EXCELL5T EXPOSITION BY ,JODL1 9 HIS 0,HI/ORY ( ,E?ICS10 :]E HE CALLS ,FI*TE'S 
TEA*+ 0,E?ICS ( CREATIVE G5IUS40 ,I WILL ONLY M5TION H]E ONE ( ! 
CONCLUSIONS ( ?IS TEA*+ 9 ORD] TO %[ H[ NE>LY ,FI*TE APPROA*$ SOME 
( ! CONCLUSIONS ( RATIONAL1 SCI5TIFIC E?ICS4 

,! PHILOSOPHY ( ,ANCI5T 
,GREECE /ROVE TO BECOME A GUIDE 9 

HUMAN LIFE4 ,! SAME AIM WAS PURSU$ BY ! MORAL PHILOSOPHY ( 
,FI*TE4 ,HIS DEM&S ) RESPECT TO MORALITY ITSELF W]E V]Y HI<1 I4 E41 HE 
9SI/$ UPON COMPLETE DIS9T]E/$NESS ( MORAL MOTIVES1 REJECT+ ALL EGOI/IC 
AIMS4 ,HE DEM&$ COMPLETE & CLE> CONSCI\SNESS 9 HUMAN WILL1 & HE UPHELD 
! BROADE/ & HI<E/ AIMS1 :I* HE DEF9$ AS ! SUPREMACY ( REASON 
ATTA9$ ?R\< HUMAN FRE$OM & ! ]ADICATION ( HUMAN 9]TIA4 

,9 O!R WORDS1 IT MAY BE SAID ?AT MORALITY1 ACCORD+ TO ,FI*TE1 CONSI/S 9 
! TRIUMPH ( ! V]Y ESS5CE ( MAN1 ( ! V]Y BASIS ( HIS ?9K+1 OV] 
?AT :I* HE PASSIVELY ASSIMILATES FROM ! 5VIRONM5T4 

,FUR!RMORE1 ,FI*TE MA9TA9$ ?AT CONSCI5CE %\LD NEV] BE GUID$ BY 
AU?ORITY4 ,HE :OSE ACTIONS >E BAS$ ON AU?ORITY1 ACTS 9 A CONSCI5CELESS 
MANN]4 ,IT CAN EASILY BE IMAG9$ H[ ELEVAT+ AN 9FLU5CE SU* PR9CIPLES 
W]E TO ! ,G]MAN Y\? 9 ! TW5TIES & ?IRTIES ( ! N9ETE5? C5TURY4 

,FI*TE ?US RETURN$ TO ! ?\<T ?AT WAS EXPRESS$ 9 ,ANCI5T ,GREECE4 ,AN 
9H]5T PROP]TY ( HUMAN REASON LIES AT ! BASES ( MORAL JUDGM5TS1 
& 9 ORD] TO BE MORAL1 MAN HAS NO NE$ EI!R ( RELIGI\S REVELATION FROM 
ABOVE1 OR ( FE> ( PUNI%M5T 9 ?IS OR 9 ! AFT] LIFE4 ,?IS IDEA1 
H[EV]1 DID NOT PREV5T ,FI*TE FROM F9ALLY COM+ TO ! CONCLUSION ?AT NO 
PHILOSOPHY CAN SUBSI/ )\T DIV9E REVELATION4 

,KRAUSE W5T /ILL FUR!R4#h ,= HIM PHILOSOPHY & !OLOGY M]G$ 9TO ONE4 
,BAAD] BUILT HIS PHILOSOPHY ON ! DOGMAS ( ! ,CA?OLIC ,*UR*1 & HIS V]Y 
EXPOSITION WAS P]MEAT$ ) ! SPIRIT ( ?AT ,*UR*4#i 

,S*ELL+1 ,BAAD]'S FRI5D1 CAME /RAI<T TO !ISM4 ,HIS IDEAL IS ,PLATO1 & 
HIS ,GOD-A P]SONAL ,GOD1 :OSE REVELATION %\LD TAKE ! PLACE ( ALL PHILOSOPHY4 
 ,NOT)/&+1 ! ,G]MAN !OLOGI/S BITT]LY ATTACK$ ,S*ELL+1 9 SPITE ( 
! FACT ?AT HE MADE SO 

 ?OR\<GO+ A CONCESSION TO !M4 ,!Y UND]/OOD1 ( C\RSE1 ?AT 
HIS ,GOD WAS NOT ! ,*RI/IAN ,GOD1 BUT RA!R ! ,GOD ( ,NATURE1 ) ITS 
/RUGGLE BETWE5 GOOD & EVIL4 ,BESIDES1 !Y SAW :AT AN ELEVAT+ 9FLU5CE 
,S*ELL+'S PHILOSOPHY EX]T$ UPON Y\?1 AN 9FLU5CE :I* !IR 
ECCLESIA/ICAL TEA*+S FAIL$ TO ATTA94#a 

,HEGEL 7#a#g#i-#a#h#c#a7 DID NOT DEVOTE A SPECIAL WORK TO E?ICS1 BUT HE CONSID]S 
MORAL PROBLEMS 9 HIS 0,PHILOSOPHY ( ,LAW4#a#a ,9 HIS PHILOSOPHY1 ! LAW & ITS BASES1 & ! 
TEA*+ ( ! MORAL1 M]GE 9TO ONE1-A V]Y *>ACT]I/IC FEATURE ( ! 
,G]MAN M9D ( ! N9ETE5? C5TURY4 

,9 ANALYZ+ ! ,KANTIAN MORAL LAW1 ,HEGEL FIR/ ( ALL PO9T$ \T ?AT IT IS 
WRONG TO ACCEPT AS ! JU/IFICATION ( ! MORAL RULE ! FACT ?AT IT MAY BE 
G5]ALLY ACKN[L$G$ AS DESIRABLE4 ,HE %[$ ?AT IT IS POSSIBLE TO F9D SOME 
G5]AL BASIS = EV]Y ACT1 OR EV5 TO RAISE EV]Y ACT TO ! DIGNITY ( DUTY4  
,& 9DE$1 WE ALL KN[ ?AT NOT ONLY DO ! SAVAGES C>RY \T FROM A S5SE ( 
DUTY SOME ACTIONS AGA9/ :I* \R CONSCI5CE REVOLTS 7KILL+ ( *ILDR51 CLAN 
V5DETTA71 BUT ?AT EV5 CIVILIZ$ SOCIETIES ACCEPT AS ! G5]AL LAW SU* 
ACTIONS AS MANY ( US CONSID] ABSOLUTELY REVOLT+ 7CAPITAL PUNI%M5T1 
EXPLOITATION ( LABOR1 CLASS 9EQUALITIES1 ETC474 

,) ALL DUE RESPECT TO ,KANT1 ?OSE :O REFLECT UPON ! F\NDATION ( ! 
MORAL CONCEPTIONS1 FEEL ?AT !RE IS SOME G5]AL RULE 

 HIDD5 AT ! BOTTOM ( !SE CONCEPTIONS4 ,IT IS SIGNIFICANT ?AT 
FROM ! TIME ( ,ANCI5T ,GREECE1 ?9K]S HAVE BE5 SE>*+ = A SUITABLE 
EXPRESSION1 9 ! =M ( A BRIEF1 G5]ALLY ACCEPTABLE =MULA1 TO D5OTE ?AT 
COMB9ATION ( JUDGM5T & FEEL+ 7OR MORE CORRECTLY-JUDGM5T APPROV$ BY 
FEEL+71 :I* WE F9D 9 \R MORAL CONCEPTIONS4 

,HEGEL1 TOO1 FELT ?IS NE$1 & HE S\<T SUPPORT = 0MORALITY0 
7,MORALITAT7 9 ! NATURALLY DEVELOP$ 9/ITUTIONS ( ! FAMILY1 
SOCIETY1 & ESPECIALLY ! ,/ATE4 ,[+ TO !SE ?REE 9FLU5CES1 WROTE ,HEGEL1 
MAN CULTIVATES SU* A CLOSE BOND ) MORALITY ?AT IT LOSES = HIM ! 
*>ACT] ( AN EXT]NAL COMPULSION2 HE SEES 9 IT ! MANIFE/ATION ( HIS FREE 
WILL4 ,MORAL CONCEPTIONS DEVELOP$ 9 ?IS MANN] >E1 ( C\RSE1 NOT 
UNALT]ABLE4 ,!Y W]E FIR/ EMBODI$ 9 ! FAMILY1 !N 9 ! ,/ATE1-BUT EV5 
H]E !RE W]E *ANGES2 NEW & HI<] =MS ( MORALITY W]E CON/ANTLY BE+ 
DEVELOP$1 & GREAT] & GREAT] EMPHASIS WAS BE+ PLAC$ ON ! RI<T ( 
P]SONALITY TO 9DEP5D5T DEVELOPM5T4 ,BUT IT %\LD BE REMEMB]$ ?AT ! 
MORALITY ( A PRIMITIVE %EPH]D HAS ! SAME VALUE AS ! MORALITY ( A HI<LY 
DEVELOP$ 9DIVIDUAL4 

,9 HIS 9T]PRETATION ( ! DEVELOPM5T ( MORAL CONCEPTIONS ,HEGEL 
UNQUE/IONABLY APPROA*$ ?OSE ,FR5* PHILOSOPH]S :O1 AS E>LY AS ! 5D ( 
! EI<TE5? C5TURY1 LAID ! F\NDATIONS ( ! !ORY ( EVOLUTION4 ,HEGEL 
WAS ! FIR/ ?9K] 9 ,G]MANY 7NOT C\NT+ ,GOE!7 :O BUILT HIS 
PHILOSOPHICAL SY/EM ON ! IDEA ( EVOLUTION1 AL?\< 9 HIS TEA*+ ?IS 
EVOLUTION TOOK ! =M ( ! FAM\S TRIAD-!SIS1 ANTI!SIS1 SYN!SIS4 ,9 
OPPOSITION TO ,KANT1 ,HEGEL TAU<T ?AT ABSOLUTE REASON IS NOT AN UNALT]ABLE 
TRU?1 OR IMMUTABLE ?9K+2 IT IS A LIV+1 CON/ANTLY MOV+1 & DEVELOP+ 
REASON4 ,?IS COSMIC REASON MANIFE/S ITSELF 9 MANK9D1 ?AT F9DS ITS 
SELF-EXPRESSION 9 ! ,/ATE4 ,9 ,HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY HUMAN P]SONALITY IS 
COMPLETELY ABSORB$ BY ! ,/ATE1 TO :I* MAN MU/ R5D] OB$I5CE4 ,! 
9DIVIDUAL IS ONLY AN 9/RUM5T 9 ! H&S ( ! ,/ATE1 & IS !RE=E BUT 
A MEANS2 UND] NO CIRCUM/ANCES CAN ! 9DIVIDUAL S]VE AS ! AIM = ! 
,/ATE4 ,! 

,/ATE1 GOV]N$ BY AN 9TELLECTUAL >I/OCRACY1 TAKES1 9 ,HEGEL'S 
PHILOSOPHY1 AN ASPECT ( A SUP]HUMAN1 SEMI-DIV9E 9/ITUTION4 

,NE$LESS TO SAY1 SU* A CONCEPTION ( SOCIETY 9EVITABLY RULES \T ! IDEA ( 
RECOGNIZ+ JU/ICE 7I4 E41 EQUITY7 AS ! BASIS ( MORAL JUDGM5TS4 ,IT 
IS ALSO CLE> ?AT SO AU?ORIT>IAN AN 9T]PRETATION ( ! SOCIAL /RUCTURE 
LEADS BACK 9EVITABLY TO RELIGION1 NAMELY1 TO ,*RI/IANITY1 :I* ?R\< ITS 
,*UR* WAS ONE ( ! PR9CIPAL FACTORS ?AT CREAT$ ! MOD]N ,/ATE4 ,HEGEL1 
ACCORD+LY1 SAW ! PROP] FIELD = ! CREATIVE ACTIVITY ( ! HUMAN SPIRIT 
NOT 9 ! REALM ( ! FREE BUILD+ ( SOCIAL LIFE1 BUT 9 ! REALM ( >T1 
RELIGION1 & PHILOSOPHY4 

,AS ,EUCK5 JU/LY REM>K$1 WE HAVE 9 ,HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY A WELL-R\ND$ SY/EM 
BAS$ ON ! LAWS ( LOGIC2 AT ! SAME TIME 9TUITION PLAYS AN IMPORTANT P>T 9 
HIS PHILOSOPHY4 ,BUT IF WE W]E TO ASK3 IS ,HEGEL'S 9TUITION CONSI/5T ) HIS 
5TIRE PHILOSOPHY8-WE %\LD HAVE TO ANSW] 9 ! NEGATIVE4 

,HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY EX]T$ A VA/ 9FLU5CE NOT ONLY 9 ,G]MANY1 BUT ALSO 9 
O!R C\NTRIES 7ESPECIALLY 9 ,RUSSIA74 ,BUT IT [ES ITS 9FLU5CE NOT TO ITS 
LOGICAL GRADATIONS1 BUT TO ?AT VITAL S5SE ( LIFE :I* IS SO *>ACT]I/IC ( 
,HEGEL'S WRIT+S4 ,!RE=E1 AL?\< ,HEGEL'S PHILOSOPHY MADE = RECONCILIATION 
) REALITY BY 9SI/+ ?AT 0ALL ?AT EXI/S IS RATIONAL10 IT S]V$ AT ! 
SAME TIME TO REAWAK5 ?\<T1 & BR\<T A C]TA9 DEGREE ( REVOLUTION>Y 
SPIRIT 9TO PHILOSOPHY2 IT CONTA9$ C]TA9 PROGRESSIVE ELEM5TS1 & !SE 
5ABL$ ! SO-CALL$ 0LEFT0 ,HEGELIANS TO USE ,HEGEL'S TEA*+ AS ! BASIS ( 
!IR REVOLUTION>Y ?\<T4 ,BUT EV5 = !M ! 9CONCLUSIV5ESS ( ,HEGELIAN 
PHILOSOPHY PROV$ TO BE A CON/ANT OB/ACLE1 ESPECIALLY ITS SUBS]VI5CE TO ! 
,/ATE4 ,H5CE1 9 !IR CRITIQUE ( ! SOCIAL SY/EM1 ! 0LEFT0 ,HEGELIANS 
ALWAYS /OPP$ %ORT AS SOON AS ,!Y CAME TO CONSID] ! F\NDATION ( ! 
,/ATE4 

,I %ALL NOT DWELL 9 DETAIL ON ! TEA*+ ( ! ,G]MAN PHILOSOPH] 
,S*LEI]MA*] 7#a#g#f#h-#a#h#c#d71 :OSE MORAL PHILOSOPHY1 AS FULL ( METAPHYSICS AS 
?AT ( ,FI*TE1 WAS BUILT 7ESPECIALLY 9 HIS SECOND P]IOD1 #a#h#a#i-#a#h#c7 ON ! 
BASIS ( !OLOGY1 NOT EV5 ( RELIGION2 

IT ADDS ALMO/ NO?+ TO :AT WAS ALREADY SAID ON ! SAME SUBJECT BY 
HIS PR$ECESSORS4 ,I WILL SIMPLY NOTE ?AT ,S*LEI]MA*] 9DICAT$ ! 
?REE-FOLD NATURE ( MORAL ACTS4 ,LOCKE1 & ! EUDEMONI/ S*OOL 9 G5]AL1 
ASS]T$ ?AT MORAL CONDUCT IS ! SUPREME GOOD2 ,*RI/IANITY REG>D$ IT AS 
VIRTUE & ! FULFILLM5T ( DUTY TO ! ,CREATOR2 :]EAS ,KANT1 :ILE RECOGNIZ+ 
VIRTUE1 SAW 9 MORAL CONDUCT PRIM>ILY ! FULFILLM5T ( DUTY 9 G5]AL4 ,= 
,S*LEI]MA*]'S MORAL TEA*+ !SE ?REE ELEM5TS >E 9DIVISIBLE1 & ! 
PLACE ( JU/ICE AS CON/ITUT+ ! BASIC ELEM5T ( MORALITY IS TAK5 BY 
,*RI/IAN LOVE4 

,G5]ALLY SPEAK+1 ,S*LEI]MA*]'S PHILOSOPHY CON/ITUTES AN ATTEMPT ON ! 
P>T ( A ,PROTE/ANT !OLOGIAN TO RECONCILE !OLOGY ) PHILOSOPHY4 ,9 
PO9T+ \T ?AT MAN FEELS HIS BOND ) ! ,UNIV]SE1 HIS DEP5D5CE UPON IT1 A 
DESIRE TO M]GE 9TO ! LIFE ( ,NATURE1 HE 5DEAVOR$ TO REPRES5T ?IS FEEL+ 
AS A PURELY RELIGI\S EMOTION1 =GETT+ 7AS ,JODL JU/LY REM>K$7 0?AT ?IS 
UNIV]SAL BOND =GES ALSO CRUEL *A9S ?AT B9D ! /RIV+ SPIRIT TO ! BASE 
& ! IGNOBLE1 ,! QUE/ION ',:Y AM ,I SU* AS ,I AM8' WAS PUT TO ! MY/]I\S 
COSMIC =CES AS (T5 ) A BITT] CURSE AS ) GRATITUDE40 

,FOOTNOTES 

#a,KANT EXP\ND$ HIS MORAL PHILOSOPHY 9 ?REE 
WORKS2 ,GRUNDLEGUNG ZUR 

,METAPHYSIK D] ,SITT51 #a<e 7,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! 
,METAPHYSIC ( ,MORALS72 ,KRITIK D] PRACTISCB5 ,V]NUNFT1 #a<h 
7,CRITIQUE ( PRACTICAL REASON72 ,DIE ,METAPHYSIK D] ,SITT51 #agig 
7,METAPHYSICS ( ,MORALS74 ,IT IS ALSO NECESS>Y TO 9CLUDE HIS >TICLES ON 
RELIGION1 ESPECIALLY ,RELIGION 9N]HALB D] ,GR5Z5 D] BLOSS5 ,V]NUNFT4 
7,RELIGION )9 ! ,B\NDS ( ,REASON ,ALONE71 O!RWISE NAM$ 
,PHILOSOPHIS*E ,RELIGIONSLEHRE4 7,! ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,!ORY ( 
,RELIGION47 

,A ?OR\< ANALYSIS ( ,KANT'S MORAL PHILOSOPHY MAY BE F\ND 9 ! WORKS ( ,JODL1 
,WUNDT1 ,PAULS51 & O!RS4 

.<,ALL ! ABOVE WORKS1 EXCEPT ,DIE ,METAPHYSIK D] ,SITT51 APPE> 9 ONE 
VOLUME 9 ,5GLI% TRANSLATION3-,KANT'S ,CRITIQUE ( ,PRACTICAL ,REASON1 & O!R 
WORKS ON ! !ORY ( ,E?ICS1 TRANSLAT$ BY ,T4 ,K4 ,ABBOTT4 ,ALL QUOTATIONS1 
UNLESS O!RWISE /AT$1 >E FROM ! SIX? $ITION ( ?IS BOOK1 ,LONDON1 
#a#i#i4.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

 #b,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! 
,METAPHYSICS ( ,MORALS1 ,P>T #a1 ,PAGE #i ,( ,ABBOTT'S TRANSLATION4 

 #c,! ,PHILOSOPHICAL ,!ORY ( 
,RELIGION1 5D ( ,P>T #a1 ,G5]AL ,REM>K4 ,ABBOTT'S TRANSLATION1 PP4 #c#e#g-#c#e#h4 
.<,A SIMIL> PASSAGE ON ! 09COMPREH5SIBILITY ( ! MORAL IMP]ATIVE0 IS F\ND 
9 ! CONCLUD+ REM>K TO ! ,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ,! ,METAPHYSIC ( 
,MORALS4 7,ABBOTT'S TRANSLATION4 PP4 #h#c-#h#d74.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

 #d,! ,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! 
,METAPHYSIC ( ,MORALS1 ,ABBOTT'S TRANSLATION1 PAGE #f#i4 

#e0,IDEAL0 9 ! ,KANTIAN S5SE ( ! WORD4 

 #f.<,IT IS 9T]E/+ TO NOTE ?AT 
,%AFTESBURY1 :O US$ EXACTLY ! SAME EXPRESSION 9 CONNECTION ) ?IS 
SUBJECT1 TOOK AN 9T]M$IATE POSITION BETWE5 ?AT ( ,KANT & ! AU?OR4 ,HE 
WROTE3 0,PR9CIPLE ( FE> ( FUTURE PUNI%M5T & HOPE ( FUTURE AW>D1 H[ 
M]C5>Y OR S]VILE SOEV] IT MAY BE ACC\NT$1 IS YET 9 MANY CIRCUM/ANCES1 A 
GREAT ADVANTAGE1 SECURITY & SUPPORT TO VIRTUE40 ,AN ,9QUIRY CONC]N+ 
,VIRTUE4 7,BOOK #a1 P>T #c1 SECTION #c74.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

 #g,AB\T ! RELATION ( ,KANTIAN E?ICS 
TO ,*RI/IANITY ON ! ONE SIDE1 & TO EGOI/IC UTILIT>IANISM ON ! O!R1 SEE 
P>TICUL>LY1 ,WUNDT'S ,E?ICS1 VOLUME #a#a1 0,E?ICAL ,SY/EMS40 

 #h.<,K>L ,*RI/IAN ,F4 ,KRAUSE 7#a#g#h#a-#a#h#c#b74 
 ,SEE ,JODL'S ,GES*4 D] ,E?IK1 VOL4 #b4.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

#i.<,FRANZ ,XAV] ,BAAD] 7#a#g#f#e-#a#h#d#a7.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

 #a,9 ,RUSSIA WE KN[1 = EXAMPLE1 FROM 
! CORRESPOND5CE ( ! ,BAKUN9S1 :AT AN ELEVAT+ 9FLU5CE ,S*ELL+'S 
PHILOSOPHY EX]T$1 AT FIR/1 UPON ! Y\? ?AT GR\P$ ITSELF >\ND 
,/ANKEVI* & ,MIKHAIL ,BAKUN94 ,BUT 9 SPITE ( SOME CORRECT SURMISES1 EXPRESS$ 
BUT VAGUELY 7AB\T GOOD & EVIL1 = EXAMPLE7 ,S*ELL+'S PHILOSOPHY1 [+ TO 
ITS MY/ICAL ELEM5TS1 SOON FAD$ AWAY1 ( C\RSE1 UND] ! 9FLU5CE ( 
SCI5TIFIC ?\<T4 .<,SEE ,CORRESPONDANCE DE ,MI*EL ,BAKUN91 ,P>IS #a#h#i#f2 
,BAKUN91 ,SOZIAL-POLITIS*] ,BRIEFWE*SEL1 #a#h#i#e4 ,ALSO1 ,BAKUN91 
,OEUVRES1 #f VOLS41 ,P>IS1 #a#h#i#e-#a#i#a#c4 ,NIKOLAI ,V4 ,/ANKEVI* 
7#a#h#a#c-#a#h#d74.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

#a#a,FUNDAM5TAL ,PR9CIPLES ( ! ,PHILOSOPHY ( 
,LAW 7,GRUNDL9I5 D] ,PHILOSOPHIE DES ,RE*TS1 #a#h#b#a74 ,ALSO ! 
,PH5OM5OLOGY ( ! ,SPIRIT1 & ! ,5CYCLOPA$IA ( ! ,PHILOSOPHICAL 
,SCI5CES1-ON ! SCI5TIFIC ANALYSIS ( ! ,NATURAL ,LAW1 #a#h#b-#a#h#c4 .<,SEE 
,W]KE1 ,B]L91 #a#h#c#b-#d#e1-VOL4 #h 7,GRUNDL9I572 VOL4 #b 
7,PHANOM5OLOGIE DES ,GEI/ES72 VOLS4 #f @& #g ,5CYCLOPADIE D] PHILOS4 
,WISS5S*AFT574.>-,TRANS4 ,NOTE4 

,FROM 3 ,AN>*Y ,>*IVES4 

,*RONOLOGY 3 
,NOVEMB] #c1 #aibc 3 ,*APT] #i -- ,PUBLICATION4 
,JANU>Y #a#e1 #bag 3 ,*APT] #i -- ,ADD$4 

 FILE G5]AT$ FROM 3  
HTTP3_/_/REVOLTLIB4COM_/