Justification of Morality as a Problem of the Kantian Ethics
https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2021-39-4-XX-XX
EDN: CKTSBA
Abstract
This article deals with the problem of morality in the ethical system of Kant and historical transformation of his ethical ideas. At the first stage, we show the prerequisites of the problem. At the second stage, we explore the place of this problem in Kant’s ethical system and the method of solving it. Kant’s assertion of religious postulates is thought of as a specific way of justifying morality. At the third stage, we propose a reconstruction of the historical fate of the doctrine of postulates, in particular, its refraction in the thought of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. The analysis allows to establish the significance of religious postulates as a necessary part of Kant’s ethical system that protects morality from devaluation; and to reconstruct the logic of the transition from Kant’s ethical system to the ideas of Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. Kantian religious postulates, on the one hand, ensure the unity and integrity of moral experience, but, on the other hand, they contradict to the logic of the modern thinking. The transition from Kant’s ethical absolutism to the radical doubt in morality in the thought of Dostoevsky and Nietzsche seem to have been inevitable. The author concludes that the solution of problem of the justification of morality cannot be found within the framework of the modern philosophical thought.
About the Author
Alexey Skomorokhov
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Adorno, T. (2000) Problemy filosofii morali [The Problems of Moral Philosophy]. Moscow: Nauchnyi mir.
2. Apresian, R. (2019) “Normativnaia reguliatsiia povedeniia” [“Normative Regulation of Behaviour], in Chelovek 1: 5–19.
3. Berdyaev, N.A. (1993) O naznachenii cheloveka. Opyt paradoksalʹnoi ėtiki [The Destiny of Man. An Essay in Paradoxical Ethics]. M.: Respublika.
4. Dostoevskii, F. (1957) “Bratʹia Karamazovy” [The Karamazov Brothers], in Dostoevskii, F.M. Sobranie sochinenii. M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura. T. 9.
5. Golosovker, Y. (1963) Dostoevsky i Kant [Dostoevsky and Kant]. Moscow: USSR Academy of Sciences publ.
6. Gusejnov, A. (2009) Velikie proroki i mysliteli. Nravstvennye ucheniia ot Moiseia do nashikh dnei [Great Prophets and Thinkers. Moral Doctrines from Moses to Present Times]. M.: Veche.
7. Haas, P. J. (1988) Morality after Auschwitz: The Radical Challenge of the Nazi Ethic. Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
8. Heidegger, M. (1993) “Evropeiskii nigilizm” [European nihilism], in Vremia i bytie: statʹi i vystupleniia: sbornik, pp. 41– 62. M.: Respublika.
9. Kant, I. (1965) “Kritika prakticheskogo razuma” [The Critique of Practical Reason], in Kant, I. Sochineniia v 6 tt. Vol. 4. Ch. 1. M.: Mysl’.
10. Kant, I., Forster, E. (ed.) (1993) Opus Postumum. 21: 51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
11. Kant, I. (1980) “Religiia v predelakh tolʹko razuma” [Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason], in Kant, I. Traktaty i pisʹma. M.: Nauka.
12. Kapustin, B. (2016) Zlo i svoboda. Rassuzhdeniia v sviazi s “Religiei v predelakh tolʹko razuma” Immanuila Kanta [Evil and Freedom. Reflections on Immanuel Kant’s “Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason”]. M.: HSE.
13. Lermontov, M. Iu. (1936) “Kogda b v pokornosti neznanʹia...” [“When in obedience to ignorance ...”], in Lermontov M. Iu. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii: V 5 t., p. 220. M.: L.: Academia. T. 1. Stikhotvoreniia, 1828–1835.
14. Merezhkovskii, D. (2002) “M.Iu. Lermontov. Poėt sverkhchelovechestva” [M. Lermontov. The Poet of Superhumanity], in M. Iu. Lermontov: pro et contra: sbornik, pp. 348–387. St. Petersburg.: RKhGI.
15. Nietzsche, F. (1990) “Po tu storonu dobra i zla” [Beyond Good and Evil], in Nitsshe, F. Sochineniia v 2 t. T. 2. M.: Myslʹ.
16. Nietzsche, F. (2005) Volia k vlasti. Opyt pereotsenki vsekh tsennostei [Will-to-Power. An Attempted Transvaluation of All Values]. M.: Kulʹturnaia revoliutsiia.
17. Shestov, L. (2012) “Synov’ia i pasynki vremeni (Istoricheskii zhrebii Spinozy)” [Children and Stepchildren of Time. Spinoza in History], in Benedikt Spinoza: pro et contra: sbornik, pp. 475–498. St. Petersburg: RHGA. (In Russian)
18. Skomorokhov, A. (2020) “Moralʹnaia universalʹnostʹ i moralʹnyi nigilizm: o smyslakh sovremennoi pereotsenki tsennostei” [Moral Universality and Moral Nihilism: on the Meanings of the Contemporary Revaluation of Values], Eticheskaia myslʹ 2(20): 5–19.
19. Solovʹev, V. (1991) Filosofiia iskusstva i literaturnaia kritika [The Philosophy of Art and Literary Critisizm]. M.: Iskusstvo.
20. Welzer, H. (2004) “Mass murder and moral code: some thoughts on an easily misunderstood subject”, History of the Human Sciences 17(2/3): 15–32.
21. Zupancic A. (2003) “The Subject of the Law”, in S. Zizek (ed.) Jacques Lacan: Critical Evaluations. Vol. II. L.: Routledge.
Review
For citations:
Skomorokhov A. Justification of Morality as a Problem of the Kantian Ethics. State, Religion and Church in Russia and Worldwide. 2021;39(4):107-124. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-7203-2021-39-4-XX-XX. EDN: CKTSBA
Views:
35
Email this article 