|
|
Maglia West Ham United 6141Goedkope PEC Zwolle VoetbalshirtsCamisetas V.Persie B
w. Ethics, on the contrary, supplies us with a matter (an object of the free elective will), an end of pure reason which is at the same time conceived as an objectively necessary end,Parajumpers Lapset Takki, i.e.,Camisetas Fenerbahce Baratas, as duty for all men. For, as the sensible inclinations mislead us to ends (which are the matter of the elective will) that may contradict duty, the legislating reason cannot otherwise guard against their influence than by an opposite moral end,Peuterey Down Veste Homme Pas cher, which therefore must be given a priori independently on inclination.
An end is an object of the elective will (of a rational being) by the idea of which this will is determined to an action for the production of this object. Now I may be forced by others to actions which are directed to an end as means,Roll'N Rock Vente Pas cher, but I cannot be forced to have an end; I can only make something an end to myself. If, however,Goedkope Griekenland Voetbalshirts, I am also bound to make something which lies in the notions of practical reason an end to myself, and therefore besides the formal determining principle of the elective will (as contained in law) to have also a material principle, an end which can be opposed to the end derived from sensible impulses; then this gives the notion of an end which is in itself a duty. The doctrine of this cannot belong to jurisprudence, but to ethics, since this alone includes in its conception self-constraint according to moral laws.
For this reason, ethics may also be defined as the system of the ends of the pure practical reason. The two parts of moral philosophy are distinguished as treating respectively of ends and of duties of constraint. That ethics contains duties to the observance of which one cannot be (physically) forced by others,Parajumpers Naiset Kodiak, is merely the consequence of this, that it is a doctrine of ends, since to be forced to have ends or to set them before one's self is a contradiction.
Now that ethics is a doctrine of virtue (doctrina officiorum virtutis) follows from the definition of virtue given above compared with the obligation, the peculiarity of which has just been shown. There is in fact no other determination of the elective will,Goedkope Zweden Voetbalshirts, except that to an end, which in the very notion of it implies that I cannot even physically be forced to it by the elective will of others. Another may indeed force me to do something which is not my end (but only means to the end of another), but he cannot force me to make it my own end,Goedkope FC Utrecht Voetbalshirts, and yet I can have no end except of my own making. The latter supposition would be a contradiction- an act of freedom which yet at the same time would not be free. But there is no contradiction in setting before one's self an end which is also a duty: for in this case I constrain myself,Camisetas Son Baratas, and this is quite consistent with freedom.* But how is such an end possible? That is now the question. For the possibility of the notion of the thing (viz., that it is not self-contradictory) is not enough to prove the possibility of the thing itself (the objective reality of the notion).
* The less a man can be physically forced, and the more he can be morally forced (by the mere idea of duty), so links:
http://meimei888.com/discuz/viewthread.php?tid=401951&pid=443990&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid443990
http://www.olginfo.com/discuz/viewthread.php?tid=401883&pid=443989&page=1&extra=page%3D1#pid443989
http://mygpgd.qs120094.quamusers.com/index.php?site=news_comments&newsID=4<br |
|
