【作者】 徐颖；

【导师】 郭菁；

【作者基本信息】 大连理工大学 ， 外国哲学， 2024， 硕士

【摘要】 决定论与道德责任能否相容的问题是哲学史上的一个重要问题。早在康德时期,西方哲学家们便已开始探讨这一问题,其核心在于必然与自由的辩证关系。不相容论者主张决定论与道德责任的对立立场,如强决定论者认为世界由因果规律所决定,在被决定的世界中不可能存在自由意志和以自由意志为前提的道德责任。相容论者则主张即便在决定论的框架下,人也有一种非限制性自由,从而能够承担道德责任。这两种观点相互对立、互相批驳,始终没有形成一致的理论定论。康德既反对不相容论者的观点,也质疑相容论者的非限制性自由,然而并未对决定论与道德责任能否相容的问题提出明确的答案。这引起了学界的关注,引发了关于康德是相容论者还是非相容论者的争论。结合康德的相关文本,可以判别康德实际上坚持的是一种相容论的责任理论。首先,在《纯粹理性批判》中,在先验演绎中,他论证了纯粹知性范畴的普遍必然性,进而证明了因果范畴的客观实在性。由于因果范畴是力学性的,不要求原因和结果具有同质性,因而它们可以分处两个世界,允许为感官世界中的有条件者设立理知世界中的无条件者,这就提供了因果决定论与自由相容的可能,现象中的同一个行动既是有条件的,又可以被设想为无条件的。其次,在《实践理性批判》和《道德形而上学奠基》中,通过设定现象界与本体界的区分,自然因果性和自由因果性可以运用到不同领域,因此两者存在一种平行或并列的关系。当关联到主体时,人既是经验自我,也是先验自我,并存在经验品格和理知品格两种品格。经验品格是理知品格用作联结自然结果的中介。因此,自然因果性和自由因果性存在一种并列且具有因果关系的相容。最后,同样基于《实践理性批判》,康德提出,道德责任奠基于自由。一方面,先验自由是道德责任得以可能的前提。在实际行动中,先验自由表现为一种可供取舍的可能性,行动者本来可以做其他选择。另一方面,实践自由表现为意志对道德法则的遵守,人的责任本质上源于理性按照道德法则对意志的内在规定。因此,无论是先验自由,还是意志自由,自由与道德责任都存在必然的联结。基于上述论证,可见,康德始终主张的是一种相容论的责任理论。学界对康德的相容论论证并非毫无异议。主要争议点在于不道德行为的难以归责、过度决定的归因挑战以及本体主义与主观主义的竞争。围绕这些争议点,可以从以下三个方面对康德相容论的责任理论进行重构:一是,意志自律是道德性的最高原则,也是提供义务最高根据的基础。二是,自然因果性和自由因果性之间既有并列关系,又有因果关系,过度决定在某种程度上是可以接受的。三是,对于本体主义与主观主义的争论,主张采用融合论解释,通过现象与自在之物以及人的经验性品格与理知品格的区分和联结,说明人的行为既受自然因果性的支配,同时也能作为自由的原因行动。康德的相容论责任理论不仅保持了自身的融贯性,还为现代新道德责任论开启了新的思路。在技术的决定成为因果追溯的背景下,康德通过拯救自由,重新将道德责任赋予给人。在他看来,即使人的行为在某种程度上被技术所影响或决定,人依然必须为此承担道德责任。更多还原

【Abstract】 The question of whether determinism is compatible with moral responsibility is a significant issue in the history of philosophy.Since Kant’s era,Western philosophers have begun to explore this issue,focusing on the dialectical relationship between necessity and freedom.Incompatibilists advocate an opposing position between determinism and moral responsibility,for instance,hard determinists argue that the world is determined by causal laws,and in a determined world,free will and moral responsibility based on it cannot exist.Compatibilists,on the other hand,maintain that even within the framework of determinism,humans possess a non-restrictive freedom,enabling them to assume moral responsibility.These two opposing views have been mutually critical,yet no consensus has been reached.Kant rejected both the incompatibilist’s viewpoint and the compatibilist’s notion of non-restrictive freedom,yet he did not provide a clear answer to whether determinism is compatible with moral responsibility.This has sparked debate in academic circles regarding whether Kant was a compatibilist or an incompatibilist.Analyzing Kant’s relevant texts,it can be discerned that Kant actually adhered to a compatibilist theory of responsibility.Firstly,in the "Critique of Pure Reason," Kant demonstrated the universal necessity of pure intellectual categories through transcendental deduction,thus proving the objective reality of causal categories.Since causal categories are mechanical and do not require homogeneity between cause and effect,they can exist in two separate worlds,allowing for the establishment of unconditionality in the intellectual world for conditionality in the sensory world.This provides a possibility for the compatibility of causal determinism and freedom,where the same action in phenomena can be both conditional and conceived as unconditional.Secondly,in the "Critique of Practical Reason" and "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals," through the distinction between the phenomenal world and the noumenal world,natural causality and free causality can be applied to different domains,resulting in a parallel or juxtaposed relationship between them.When related tothe subject,humans are both empirical selves and transcendental selves,possessing both empirical and intellectual characters.The empirical character serves as an intermediary connecting natural consequences.Therefore,there exists a juxtaposed and causal compatibility between natural causality and free causality.Lastly,also based on the "Critique of Practical Reason," Kant proposed that moral responsibility is grounded in freedom.On one hand,transcendental freedom is prerequisite for the possibility of moral responsibility.In practical action,transcendental freedom manifests as a possibility of choice,and the agent could have made other choices.On the other hand,freedom of will manifests as adherence to moral laws,and human responsibility essentially stems from the inherent provisions of moral laws.Thus,whether it is transcendental freedom or freedom of will,there exists an inevitable connection between freedom and moral responsibility.Based on the above arguments,it can be seen that Kant consistently advocated a compatibilist theory of responsibility.Academic circles are not without dissent on Kant’s compatibilist argument.The main controversies revolve around the difficulty of imputing immoral behavior,the challenge of overdetermination,and the competition between noumenalism and subjectivism.Regarding these controversies,Kant’s compatibilist theory of responsibility can be reconstructed from the following three perspectives: firstly,the autonomy of the will is the supreme principle of morality and the foundation for the highest ground of obligation.Secondly,there exists both a juxtaposed and causal relationship between natural causality and free causality,and overdetermination is acceptable to some extent.Thirdly,regarding the debate between noumenalism and subjectivism,it is advocated to adopt a fusionist interpretation,explaining that human behavior is both governed by natural causality and can act as a cause of freedom through the distinction and connection between phenomena and things-in-themselves as well as human empirical and intellectual characters.Kant’s compatibilist theory of responsibility not only maintains its coherence but also opens up new avenues for modern theories of moral responsibility.In the context of technological determinism as a causal traceability,Kant reinstates moral responsibility to humans by salvaging freedom.Even if human behavior is influenced or determined by technology to some extent,humans still have to take moral responsibility for it.更多还原