Chapter LIX: Section II

THE IDEAL OF THE HIGHEST GOOD, AS A DETERMINING GROUND OF THE ULTIMATE END OF PURE REASON[1718]

Reason in its speculative employment transcends experience, but solely for the sake of experience. In other words, speculative Reason has a purely empirical function. (This is the explanation of the somewhat paradoxical contention, to which Kant has already committed himself, that the problems of God and immortality, _though seemingly speculative in character_, really originate in our practical interests.) But pure Reason has also a practical use; and it is in this latter employment that it first discloses the genuinely metaphysical character of its present constitution and ultimate aims. The moral consciousness, in revealing to us an Ideal of absolute value, places in our hands the only available key to the mysteries of existence. As this moral consciousness represents the deepest reality of human life, it may be expected to have greater metaphysical significance than anything else in human experience; and since the ends which it reveals also present themselves as _absolute_ in value, and are indeed the only absolute values of which we can form any conception, this conclusion would seem to be confirmed.

Happiness has natural value; morality, _i.e._ the being worthy to be happy, has absolute value. The means of attaining the former obtain expression in prudential or pragmatic laws that are empirically grounded. The conditions of the latter are embodied in a categorical imperative of an _a priori_ character. The former _advise_ us how best to satisfy our natural desire for happiness; the latter _dictates_ to us how we must behave in order to deserve happiness.

Kant’s further argument is too condensed to be really clear, and if adequately discussed would carry us quite beyond the legitimate limits of this _Commentary_. I shall therefore confine myself to a brief and free restatement of his general position. The Critical teaching can be described as resulting in a new interpretation of the function of philosophy.[1719] The task of the philosopher, properly viewed, does not consist in the solution of _speculative_ problems; such problems transcend our human powers. All that philosophy can reasonably attempt is to analyse and define the situations, cognitive and practical, in which, owing to the specific conditions of human existence, we find ourselves to be placed. Upon analysis of the cognitive situation Kant discovers that while all possibilities are open, the theoretical data are never such as to justify ontological assertions.[1720] When, however, he passes to the practical situation, wider horizons, definitely outlined, at once present themselves. The moral consciousness is the key to the meaning of the entire universe as well as of human life. Its values are the sole ultimate values, and enable us to interpret in _moral_ terms (even though we cannot comprehend in any genuinely _theoretical_ fashion) the meaning of the dispensation under which we live. The moral consciousness, like sense-experience, discloses upon examination a systematic unity of presupposed conditions. In the theoretical sphere this unity cannot be proved to be more than a postulated Ideal of _empirical_ experience; and it is an Ideal which, even if granted to have absolute validity, is too indefinite to enable us to assert that ultimate reality is spiritual in character, or is teleologically ordered. The underlying conditions, on the other hand, of practical experience have from the start a purely noumenal reference. They have no other function than to define, in terms of the moral consciousness, the ultimate meaning of reality as a whole. They postulate[1721] a universe in which the values of spiritual experience are supported and conserved.

But the main difference in Kant’s treatment of the two situations, cognitive and practical, only emerges into view when we recognise the differing modes in which the transcendental method of proof is applied in the two cases. The _a priori_ forms of sensibility, understanding, and Reason are proved by reference to possible experience, as being its indispensable conditions. In moral matters, however, we must not appeal to experience. The actual is no test of the Ideal; “what is” is no test of what ought to be. And secondly, the moral law, if valid at all, must apply not merely within the limits of experience, but with absolute universality to all rational beings. The moral law, therefore, can neither be given us in experience, nor be proved as one of the conditions necessary to its possibility. Its validity, in other words, can be established neither through experience nor through theoretical reason.

Though such is Kant’s own method of formulating the issue, it exaggerates the difference of his procedure in the two _Critiques_, and is very misleading as a statement of his real position. In one passage, in the _Critique of Practical Reason_,[1722] Kant does, indeed, assert that the moral law requires no deduction. It is, he claims, a _fact_ of which we are _a priori_ conscious: so far from itself requiring proof, it enables us to prove the reality of freedom. Yet in the very same section he argues that the deduction of freedom from the moral law is a credential of the latter, and is a sufficient substitute for all _a priori_ justification. According to the first statement we have an immediate consciousness of the validity of the moral law; according to the second statement the moral law proves itself indirectly, by serving as a principle for the deduction of freedom. The second form of statement alone harmonises with the argument developed in the third section of the _Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals_, and more correctly expresses the intention of Kant’s central argument in the _Critique of Practical Reason_. For the difference between the two transcendental proofs in the two _Critiques_ does not really consist in any diversity of method, but solely in the differing character of the premisses from which each starts. The ambiguity of Kant’s argument in the second _Critique_ seems chiefly to be caused by his failure clearly to recognise that the moral law, though a form of pure Reason, exercises, in the process of its transcendental proof, a function which exactly corresponds to that which is discharged by possible experience in the first _Critique_. Our consciousness of the moral law is, like sense-experience, a given fact. It is _de facto_, and cannot be deduced from anything more ultimate than itself.[1723] But as given, it enables us to deduce its transcendental conditions. This does not mean that our immediate consciousness of it _as given_ guarantees its validity. The nature of its validity is established only in the process whereby it reveals its necessary implications. The objects of sense-experience are assumed by ordinary consciousness to be absolutely real; in the process of establishing the transcendental conditions of such experience they are discovered to be merely phenomenal. The pure principles of understanding thus gain objective validity as the conditions of a given experience which reveals only appearances. Ordinary consciousness similarly starts from the assumption of the absolute validity of the moral law. But in this case the consciousness of the law is discovered on examination to be explicable, _even as a possibility_, only on the assumption that it is due to the autonomous activity of a noumenal being. By its existence it proves the conditions through which alone it is explicable. Its mere existence suffices to prove that its validity is objective in a deeper and truer sense than the principles of understanding. _The notion of freedom, and therefore all the connected Ideas of pure Reason, gain noumenal reality as the conditions of a moral consciousness which is incapable of explanation as illusory or even phenomenal._ Since the consciousness of the moral law is thus noumenally grounded, it has a validity with which nothing in the phenomenal world can possibly compare. It is the one form in which noumenal reality directly discloses itself to the human mind.[1724]

Obviously the essential crux of Kant’s argument lies in the proof that the moral consciousness _is_ only explicable in this manner, as the self-legislation of a noumenal being. Into the merits of his argument we cannot, however, here enter; and I need only draw attention to the manner in which it conflicts with the statement of the preceding section, that the possibility of transcendental freedom is a purely speculative question with which practical Reason is not concerned. The reality of freedom, as a form of noumenal activity, is the cardinal fact of Kant’s metaphysics of morals. For though our consciousness of the moral law is the _ratio cognoscendi_ of freedom, transcendental freedom is the _ratio essendi_ of the moral law.[1725]

“With this faculty [of practical Reason], transcendental freedom is
also established; freedom, namely, in that absolute sense in which
speculative Reason required it, in its use of the concept of
causality, in order to escape the antinomy into which it inevitably
falls, when in the chain of cause and effect it tries to think the
_unconditioned_.... Freedom is the only one of all the Ideas of the
speculative Reason of which we _know_ the possibility _a priori_
(without, however, understanding it), because it is the condition
of the moral law which we know.”[1726] ”[Freedom] is the only one
of all the Ideas of pure Reason whose object is a thing of fact and
to be reckoned among the _scibilia_.”[1727] “It is thus very
remarkable that of the three pure rational Ideas, God, freedom, and
immortality, that of freedom is the only concept of the
supersensible which (by means of the causality that is thought in
it) proves its objective reality in nature by means of the effects
it can produce there; and thus renders possible the connection of
both the others with nature, and of all three with one another so
as to form a Religion.... The concept of freedom (as fundamental
concept of all unconditioned practical laws) can extend Reason
beyond those bounds within which every natural (theoretical)
concept must inevitably remain confined.”[1728]

Thus freedom is for Kant a demonstrated fact, and in that respect differs from the Ideas of God and immortality, which are merely problematic conceptions, and which can be postulated only as articles of “practical faith.”

This brings us to the final question, upon what grounds Kant ascribes validity to the Ideas of God and immortality. At this point in his argument Kant introduces the conception of the _Summum Bonum_. Reason, in prescribing the moral law, prescribes, as the final and complete end of all our actions, the _Summum Bonum_, _i.e._ happiness proportioned to moral worth. _Owing to the limitations of our faculties_, the complete attainment of this supreme end is conceivable by us only on the assumption of a future life wherein perfect worthiness may be attained, and of an omnipotent Divine Being who will apportion happiness in accordance with merit.

”[This Divine Being] must be omnipotent, in order that the whole of
nature and its relation to morality ... may be subject to his will;
omniscient, that he may know our innermost sentiments and their
moral worth; omnipresent, that he may be immediately present for
the satisfying of every need which the highest good demands;
eternal, that this harmony of nature and freedom may never fail,
etc.”[1729]

The moral ideal thus supplies us with a ground[1730] for regarding the universe as systematically ordered according to moral purposes, and also with a principle that enables us to infer the nature and properties of its Supreme Cause. In place of a demonology, which is all that physical theology can establish, we construct upon moral grounds a genuine theology.

The concepts thus obtained are, however, anthropomorphic; and for that reason alone must be denied all speculative value. This is especially evident in regard to the Idea of God. Owing to our incapacity to comprehend how moral merit can condition happiness, we conceive them as _externally_ combined through the intervention of a supreme Judge and Ruler. As Kant indicates,[1731] we must not assert that this represents the actual situation. He himself seems to have inclined to a more mystical interpretation of the universe, conceiving the relation of happiness to virtue as being grounded in a supersensuous but necessary order that may, indeed, be bodied forth in the inadequate symbols of the deistic creed, but which in its true nature transcends our powers of understanding. So far as the Ideas of God and immortality are necessary to define the moral standpoint, they have genuine validity for all moral beings; but if developed on their own account as speculative dogmas, they acquire a definiteness of formulation which is not essential to their moral function, and which lays them open to suspicion even in their legitimate use.

These considerations also indicate Kant’s further reason for entitling the _Summum Bonum_, God and immortality, Ideas of _faith_. Though they can be established as presuppositions of the moral situation in which we find ourselves, such demonstration itself rests upon the acceptance of the moral consciousness as possessing a supersensuous sanction; and that in turn is determined by features in the moral situation not deducible from any higher order of considerations.

“Belief in matters of faith is a belief in a pure practical point
of view, _i.e._ a moral faith, which proves nothing for
theoretical, pure, rational cognition, but only for that which is
practical and directed to the fulfilment of its duties; it in no
way extends speculation.... If the supreme principle of all moral
laws is a postulate, the possibility of its highest Object ... is
thereby postulated along with it.”[1732] “So far, as practical
Reason has the right to yield us guidance, we shall not look upon
actions as obligatory because they are the commands of God, but
shall regard them as divine commands because we have an inward
obligation to them.... Moral theology is thus of immanent use only.
It enables us to fulfil our vocation in this present world by
showing us how to adapt ourselves to the system of all ends, and by
warning us against the fanaticism and indeed the impiety of
abandoning the guidance of a morally legislative Reason in the
right conduct of our lives, in order to derive guidance directly
from the Idea of the Supreme Being. For we should then be making a
transcendent employment of moral theology; and that, like a
transcendent use of pure speculation, must pervert and frustrate
the ultimate ends of Reason.”[1733]