Satne Paula
Teaching Fellow in Philosophy, University of Durham (UK), 50, Old Elvet, DH1 3HN Durham, UK.
Philosophia (Ramat Gan). 2016;44(4):1029-1055. doi: 10.1007/s11406-016-9727-6. Epub 2016 Jul 5.
Forgiveness is clearly an important aspect of our moral lives, yet surprisingly Kant, one of the most important authors in the history of Western ethics, seems to have very little to say about it. Some authors explain this omission by noting that forgiveness sits uncomfortably in Kant's moral thought: forgiveness seems to have an ineluctably 'elective' aspect which makes it to a certain extent arbitrary; thus it stands in tension with Kant's claim that agents are autonomous beings, capable of determining their own moral status through rational reflection and choice. Other authors recognise that forgiveness plays a role in Kant's philosophy but fail to appreciate the nature of this duty and misrepresent the Kantian argument in support of it. This paper argues that there is space in Kant's philosophy for a genuine theory of forgiveness and hopes to lay the grounds for a correct interpretation of this theory. I argue that from a Kantian perspective, forgiveness is not 'elective' but, at least in some cases, morally required. I claim that, for Kant, we have an imperfect duty of virtue to forgive repentant wrongdoers that have embarked on a project of self-reflection and self-reform. I develop a novel argument in support of this duty by drawing on Kant's theory of rational agency, the thesis of radical evil, Kant's theory of moral development, and the formula of humanity. However, it must be noted that this is a conditional duty and Kant's position also entails that absence of repentance on the part of the wrongdoer should be taken as evidence of a lack of commitment to a project of self-reflection and self-reform. In such cases, Kant claims, we have a perfect duty to ourselves not to forgive unrepentant wrongdoers. I argue that this duty should be understood as one of the duties of , which involves the duty to respect and recognise our own dignity as rational beings.
宽恕显然是我们道德生活的一个重要方面,但令人惊讶的是,西方伦理史上最重要的作者之一康德似乎对此几乎没有什么可说的。一些作者通过指出宽恕在康德的道德思想中格格不入来解释这一疏漏:宽恕似乎不可避免地具有“选择性”,这在一定程度上使其具有任意性;因此,它与康德关于行为主体是自主的存在,能够通过理性思考和选择来决定自己道德地位的主张相矛盾。其他作者认识到宽恕在康德哲学中发挥了作用,但没有理解这一义务的本质,并且错误地表述了支持它的康德式论证。本文认为,在康德的哲学中有空间构建一种真正的宽恕理论,并希望为正确解释这一理论奠定基础。我认为,从康德的角度来看,宽恕不是“选择性的”,而是至少在某些情况下在道德上是必需的。我主张,对康德来说,我们有一项不完全的德性义务,即宽恕那些已经开始进行自我反思和自我改造的悔悟的作恶者。我通过借鉴康德的理性行为主体理论、根本恶的论题、康德的道德发展理论以及人性公式,提出了一个新颖的论证来支持这一义务。然而,必须指出的是,这是一项有条件的义务,康德的立场还意味着,作恶者没有悔悟应被视为缺乏对自我反思和自我改造计划的承诺的证据。康德声称,在这种情况下,我们对自己有一项完全的义务,即不宽恕不悔悟的作恶者。我认为,这项义务应被理解为自我尊重的义务之一,它涉及尊重和承认我们作为理性存在者自身尊严的义务。