The Fact of Reason
Kant's whole ethics rested on a freedom he admitted could never be proved — so what if morality is not built on freedom at all, but is the evidence for it?
The order of discovery reverses. We know the moral law directly — the plain consciousness that one ought to act regardless of what one wants is a bare given, a fact of reason that no argument installs and none removes — and because that law commands, the freedom it presupposes must be real. Morality becomes the proof of freedom rather than its consequence. It is Kant's answer to the critics who went straight for the Groundwork's weakest point, and it lets him stop trying to demonstrate the one thing his system could not do without.
- practical reason
- morality
- duty
- moral agency
- will
- freedom
- free will
- reason
- autonomy
- causality
Enter a dialogue
- Ordered on pain of death to testify falsely against an honest man, anyone must admit they could refuse, whatever they would actually do. Does that prove freedom?
- You could not prove freedom, so you now say we simply find the moral law in ourselves, a 'fact of reason'. Isn't that just renaming the failure?
- Before a humble, ordinary person more upright than we are, our minds bow whether we want to or not. What does that reaction reveal about the moral law?
- Urging people to do 'noble and sublime' deeds as extra merit, not as duty, breeds self-conceit. Why can praising heroism damage a person's morals?
- If good is defined first and the law derived from it, the will ends up chasing pleasure. Why must the moral law come before the good?