伊曼努尔·康德（1724-1804）是一个哲学家。他对哲学史及哲学的发展都是举足轻重的人物。
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was a philosopher. He is a major figure in the history and development of philosophy.
在道德哲学和伦理学中，康德因他的“绝对命令”而著称。这个命令通常表达为：
In moral philosophy and ethics, Kant is best known for what’s called “the categorical imperative”. This is most commonly expressed as:
“仅仅依据那条你同时愿意它成为一条普遍法则的准则来行动”——伊曼努尔· 康德：《道德形而上学的基础》
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.” — Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysic of Morals
绝对命令确实是关于法则的法则。这条绝对命令指出，我们应该仅仅用某些法则来指导我们的决策：这些法则可以让我们与那些也使用这些法则来指导他们的行为的人和睦相处，而检测我们是否愿意一条法则成为普遍法则的过程被称之为“普遍化”。
The categorical imperative is really a law about laws. It’s a law that says we should govern our decisions only with laws that we would be fine with everyone else also using to govern their decisions. The process of testing if we’d want a law to be universal is called “universalizing”.
Untitled, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1953
与金规的比较 Comparison with the golden rule
有人拿绝对命令与金律进行比较。金规指出：
Some people have compared the categorical imperative to the golden rule. The golden rule states the following:
- 每一个人都应该用自己愿意他人对待自己的方式来对待他人
- One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself
它否定性的表达方式是：
And in its negative form:
- 每一个人都不应该用自己不愿意他人对待自己的方式来对待他人
- One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated
这是一条古代的规则。1670年代第一次有人把这个概念称为“金规”， 但是这个概念在1670年之前就为人们所熟知。在所有的主要宗教和每个文明的滥觞中也可以找到这条规则。例如，在印度教、佛教、道教、基督教犹太教和拜火教中，人们很容易发现它。在早期的孔子思想中也有这种论述。“对待他人”这个概念以某种形式出现在每一个宗教和文明之中。
This is an ancient rule. The first references to the concept as “the golden rule” were in the 1670s, but the concept was known well before that time. It is also found in every major religion and the beginnings of every civilization. It appears prominently in Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. It’s also described in early Confucius thought. The concept of “do unto others” appears in some form in every religion and civilization.
Mont Orange, jean-Paul Riopelle, 1970
金规与绝对命令的区别是什么？How is the golden rule different from the categorical imperative?
区别就在于两者之中哪一个更抽象。金律并不告诉人们如何做决定，它仅仅是说，如果你对某个人做了某件事，保证当他人这样对你的时候，你也没问题。康德把它抽象化了。他说（行动的）决定依据的是法则或准则，而这些法则必须普遍化。金规是关于行动的，而绝对命令是关于指导行为的法则。
The difference is in the level of abstraction. The golden rule does not say anything about how people make decisions. It just says — if you do something to someone else, make sure you’d be okay with that same thing being done to you. Kant abstracts this. He says that decisions are made using laws or maxims, and it’s those laws that must be universalized. The golden rule is about acts, but the categorical imperative is about the rules that govern acts.
因此，康德认为，”金律“ 是绝对命令中推演出来的规则之一。
For this reason, Kant claims that the “golden rule” is one rule that could be generated by the categorical imperative.
绝对命令的优点是什么？ What’s good about the categorical imperative？
Nouvelle Impressionne, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1977
很多人喜欢绝对命令，因为它既给了人们很多自由，又可以防止不好的事情发生。有些人把自由当作终极目的本身。 当然，自由的问题在于，有些人可能做出一些伤害他人的事。对于那些把自由当作目的的人来说，康德的绝对命令消解了个人自由与他人幸福之间的张力，因此它是很有吸引力的。如果每个人都遵守绝对命令，人们就可以在获得完整自由的同时，规避自由带来的不利影响（或伤害）。
Many people like the categorical imperative because it seems to both give people a lot of freedom while also preventing bad things from happening. Some people see freedom as an end objective in itself. Of course, a problem with freedom is that some people might do things that hurt other people. For people that value freedom as an end, Kant’s categorical imperative is compelling because it seems to resolve this tension between freedom and other people’s happiness. If everyone followed the categorical imperative then there would be almost complete freedom without the downsides of freedom.
Roux, Jean-Paul Riopelle
绝对命令的问题 Problems with the categorical imperative
人们实际上如何做出决策的？
How do people really make decisions?
绝对命令的预设是，人们是根据准则或规则来做出行动决策的。这个预设并不是完全正确的。有些人神智不清， 不会做出理性或一贯的决策。有的人是根据无法言说的直觉、情绪或情感来作决策的。而以下的说法也是值得商榷，即清醒的、理性的人作决策时，一般会考虑无数的变量并最大化他们未来的幸福。至于这种功利主义式的决策过程能否通过绝对命令，倒是一个有意思的问题。
One of the assumptions of the categorical imperative is that people make decisions based on maxims or rules. This is not clearly true. Some people are insane and don’t make decisions in any rational or coherent way. Other people make decisions based on instinct, feeling, or emotion that can’t be articulated. It’s arguable that even sane and rational people generally make decisions looking at numerous variables and maximizing their future happiness. Whether or not this utilitarian process to making decisions can pass the categorical imperative is an interesting question.
Ancienne Riviere, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1974
规则应该具体到什么程度？
How specific can the rules be?
另一个问题就是，确切地说，什么让规则变得正当？规则可以具体到什么程度? 比如说，甲可以提出一条规则 “只要你是甲，你就可以偷盗别人的东西” ， 这条规则可以通过绝对命令， 因为甲完全可以普遍化这条规则。当这条规则普遍化时，除了甲自己，没有人可以偷盗。
Another problematic issue is what exactly makes a legitimate rule. How specific can the rules get? For example, Person X could propose the rule “steal from others only if you are Person X”. This would pass the categorical imperative because X would have no problem with universalization of this rule. When this rule is universalized then nobody would steal but X.
有人会说，好吧，让我们规定，规则不能专用于个人自己。但是甲刚好出生在Y日，居住在Z地， 然后聪明的他会提出一条规则：”只要你出生的Y日，居住在Z区，就可以偷盗别人的东西”.
One could say, well, let’s make it so that rules cannot refer to one’s self. Then clever Person X who happens to live in the Z district and was born on date Y could propose the rule “steal from others only if you live in Z and were born on Y”.
规则可以任意地制定得更加复杂，以利于甲，或者利于由甲之类的人组成的一个小群体，而不会使这条规则专门应用于甲。甲很高兴这条规则的普遍化，因此这条规则可以通过绝对命令。这条规则除了是给了甲或者与甲相似的一小群人偷盗的权利而已。如果甲担心这个群体太大了，以致他本人有可能被他人所偷盗，甲可以将它精细化为 “只要你居住在Z地，出生在Y日，就可以偷盗，但不要偷那些满足这两个条件的人”。 通过这种方式，他就赋予了自己偷盗他人的权利，且自己可以免于遭受他人偷盗，而不用专门说出自己的名字，而这条规则依然可以普遍化并通过绝对命令。
The rule could be made arbitrarily complex to only benefit Person X, or a tiny community of people similar to Person X, without specifically referring to Person X. The rule would still pass the categorical imperative because X would be happy with the rule being universalized. The rule only gives him, or a small group of people like him, the right to steal. If X is worried this group might be too large and he therefore might be stolen from then the rule could be further refined to “steal from others only if you live in Z and were born on Y, and don’t ever steal from ZY people”. In this way, he’d give himself the right to steal, and also exempt himself from being stolen from, but without specifically naming himself. The rule is still universalizable and passes the categorical imperative.
Forteresse, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1962
有人会说，不要制定指向特定个人和地方，或个人和地方的特定性质的规则。但这会把决策所依据的正当规则推向相当抽象的境地。
One could say — well never make rules that refer to specific people or places, or specific properties of people or places. But this would push legitimate rules for decision-making into fairly abstract territory.
正如上文所述，表面上绝对命令看起来会支持平等。然而，“金规”比绝对命令更有利于平等。金规是关于行为的，而不是规则，而且不会像绝对命令那样受到上文中甲的诡计所攻击。偷盗是一个行为。在金规之下，甲不能偷盗，因为他不想被别人所偷。绝对命令则给了甲一种自由：他可以任意地制定细节的、并且可以普遍化的规则来为他的决策辩护，即便这种辩护是不老实的。
As I noted above, on the surface the categorical imperative seems to foster equality. However, it’s arguable that the “golden rule” is much more favorable to equality. The golden rule is about acts, not rules, and it’s not vulnerable to the kind of trickery Person X above used on the categorical imperative. Stealing is an act. Person X is not able to steal under the golden rule because he wouldn’t want to be stolen from. The categorical imperative gives X the freedom to construct arbitrarily detailed, but universalizable rules to justify his decisions, however crooked.
Untitled, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1948
案例：询问的凶手
The Inquiring Murderer
哲学家本杰明. 贡斯当（1767-1839）指出，因为讲真话必须是普遍的准则（因为人们不想被他人欺骗），所以一个人必须把凶手所要追杀的人的位置告诉他。康德在他的论文《关于出于仁慈的动机而撒谎的假定的权利》中回应了这个挑战。康德同意贡斯当的基本推理：说真话应该是普遍的，从绝对命令中人们将推出每个人都有以下道德责任：告诉凶手其所要追杀的人的位置的道德责任。
The philosopher Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) claimed that since telling the truth must be universal (since people don’t want to be lied to), one must tell a murderer the location of his prey. Kant responded to this challenge with the essay “On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives”. Kant agreed with Constant’s basic inference, that truth telling is universal, and from the categorical imperative one will therefore infer a moral duty to tell a murderer the location of his prey.
有趣的是，康德并不认为这个案例会削弱绝对命令的合理性。他认为对凶手撒谎并不是不正当的，因为行为的道德价值不来自它们的后果。对凶手说真话是正当的，因为这并不是把谋杀当做是目的。简言之，康德认为这里的问题是，凶手并不遵守绝对命令。凶手的（杀人的）行为是错误的，人们告诉他受害者的位置并没有错。
Interestingly, Kant did not believe that this example weakens the categorical imperative. He believed that lying to the murderer would not be wrong because acts do not derive their moral worth from their consequences. Telling the truth to the murderer would be right because it would not be treating the murderer as an end. In short, Kant believed the problem here was that the murderer was not following the categorical imperative. Only the murderer’s acts are wrong, not anyone who tells him where his victim is.
对于大多数人来说，这个结果会造成一些麻烦的。在真实世界中，每个人都不会遵守绝对命令。在我们的世界中，绝对命令将会面临来自“询问的凶手”之类的案例中的压力。
For most people this result is a little troubling. In the real-world it’s unlikely everyone will ever follow the categorical imperative. In this kind of world, the categorical imperative will be under constant pressure from examples similar to the inquiring murderer.
Untitled, Jean-Paul Riopelle, 1954
结论：Conclusion：
康德的道德理论是一种成之为道义式的宽泛理论中的一种。“道义式的”这个词，来源于希腊语“deontos”，指的是义务。 道义式的理论通过以下的方式来说明道德：行为如何与林林总总的预先规定的义务相一致。行为要么是服从这些义务，要么是违背之，所以行为要么是善的，要么是恶的。这与另一种宽泛的叫做目的论的道德理论形成鲜明的对比。这个词来自telos, 希腊语指的是 “目的”。目的论的理论把道德系于行为的结果或后果。某些事物如果能导致更多好的或令人满意的结果，就是好的。
Kant’s moral theory lies within a broad class of theories known as deontological. This word, deontological, derives from the Greek “deontos”, meaning duty. Deontological theories specify morality by how acts correspond to various pre-defined duties. Acts either conform to these duties or they don’t, so acts are either good or bad. This contrasts with the other broad class of moral theories; teleological theories. This word derives from telos, Greek for “end”. Teleological theories link morality to the results or consequences of acts. Something is good if it creates more good or desirable results.
康德的理论引人入胜、发人深思。它如此简洁明快，却能引发这么多的道德思考。它却有一些弱点，但它也防止了一些其它的理论所允许的不正义。
Kant’s theory is fascinating to think about. It’s so terse and short, yet can derive so much morality. It does have some weaknesses, but it also prevents some injustices that might be permitted under other theories.
艺术家简介：About the artist:
吉恩-保罗里奥皮勒（1923-2002）是一个来自加拿大魁北克省的画家和雕刻家。他因其作品获得了国际上的广泛认可。
About the artist: Jean-Paul Riopelle, (1923－2002) was a painter and sculptor from Quebec, Canada. He attained widespread international recognition for his work.
Follow “shitaojianggushi” on Wechat, or just scan our QR code.
