論康德處理義務衝突之論據：以維持誠實與人類之愛的衝突為例

On Kant's Argument towards Settling the Conflict of Duties: The Conflict between Maintaining Honesty and Philanthropy as an Example

婁振業(Chun-Yip Lowe)

說謊 ； 誠實 ； 人類之愛 ； 全然與不全然義務 ； 模態範疇 ； Lying ； Honesty ； Philanthropy ； Perfect and Imperfect Duty ； Categories of Modality

東吳哲學學報

35期（2017 / 02 / 01）

101 - 129

繁體中文

本文旨在說明康德堅持說謊禁令之理據。在說謊禁令與人類之愛的衝突例子，康德堅持前者比後者重要，但令人難以接受。雖然很多康德學者提出不同的策略解決義務衝突問題，但並不成功，因為它們都違反了定然律令，而且很多學者都忽視了康德提出的全然義務與不全然義務區分。本文也主張，此區分於實踐理性的模態範疇能發揮評估功能，由此能幫助我們理解說謊禁令的優先意義。

The aim of this paper is to show the ground of Kant's insistence on the Lügenverbot. In the example of the conflict between the Lügenverbot and philanthropy Kant argues that the former is more important than the latter. However, it seems that this suggestion is difficult for us to accept. Although many Kantian scholars suggest different approaches to solve this problem, they are not successful, since these approaches violate the categorical imperative. Inasmuch as Kant's distinction between perfect and imperfect duty is easily neglected, this paper argues that with the help of the categories of modality of practical reason that this very distinction serves an evaluative function, which helps us to understand Kant's insistence on the superiority of the Lügenverbot.

1. Kant, I. (1900 ff). Gesammelte Schriften (Koniglich Preusische, Ed., later German).　Berlin: Akademie der Wissenschaften.
2. Allison, H. E.(2011).Kant's Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals: A Commentary.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
3. Allison, H. E.(1990).Kant's Theory of Freedom.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
4. Allison, H. E.(2001).Kant's Theory of Taste: A Reading of the Critique of Aesthetic Judgment.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
5. Allison, H. E.(1996).Idealism and Freedom: Essays on Kant's Theoretical and Practical Philosophy.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
6. Bader, R. M.(2009).Kant and the Categories of Freedom.British Journal for the History of Philosophy,17(4),799-820.
7. Denis, L.(Ed.)(2010).Kant's Metaphysics of Morals: A Critical Guide.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
8. García-Marzá, D.(2012).Kant's Principle of Publicity: The Intrinsic Relationship between the Two Formulations.Kant-Studien,103,96-113.
9. Korsgaard, C. M.(1996).Creating the Kingdom of Ends.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10. Kwan, T.-W.(2008).Kant's Possible Contribution to Natural Law Debates.Responsibility and Commitment: Eighteen Essays in Honor of Gerhold K. Becker,Waldkirch:
11. Lee, S. K.(2012).Self-Determination and the Categories of Freedom in Kant's Moral Philosophy.Kant-Studien,103,337-350.
12. Lowe, C. Y.(2012).Kant's Social Contract: A New Transcendental Principle in Political Philosophy.Kant Yearbook,4(1),91-112.
13. Lowe, C. Y.(2015).Zum ewigen Frieden: Die Theorie des Völkerrechts bei Kant und Rawls.Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
14. Mahon, J. E.(2003).Kant on Lies, Candour and Reticence.Kantian Review,7,102-133.
15. Oberer, H.(Ed.),Seel, G.(Ed.)(1988).Kant: Analysen-Probleme-Kritik.Würzburg:Konigshausen & Neumann.
16. Varden, H.(2010).Kant and Lying to the Murderer at the Door . . . One More Time: Kant's Legal Philosophy and Lies to Murderers and Nazis.Journal of Social Philosophy,41,403-421.
17. Weinrib, J.(2008).The Juridical Significance of Kant's "Supposed Right to Lie".Kantian Review,13(1),141-170.
18. Wood, A. W.(2011).Kant and the Right to Lie Reviewed Essay: On a Supposed Right to Lie from Philanthropy, by Immanuel Kant (1797).Eidos: Revista de Filosofía de la Universidad del Norte,15,96-116.
19. Wood, A. W.(2008).Kantian Ethics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
20. 勞思光編、關子尹編(2001)。康德知識論要義新編。香港:中文大學出版社。
21. 關子尹(1994)。從哲學的觀點看。臺北:東大圖書公司。