2013年11月12日

看到有人引康德一段話(出處):


在那脈絡底下,匿名客大概是覺得引一引康德就能反對一男一女以外所有形式的婚姻。(大概!因為他很有型,其他話一句都沒講。)

若是如此,我得多提醒一件事:康德反對手淫。他在 The Metaphysics of Morals 有幾段文字,根據學界的標準詮釋,那幾段文字會反對手淫。簡易版可參考 Roderick T. Long 的節錄, “masturbation” 那節。 Paul Guyer 和 Allen Wood 主編, Mary Gregor 編譯的 Practical Philosophy (1996, pp. 548-550) 有收錄 The Metaphysics of Morals ,以下是部分譯文(模仿匿名客,貼引文,不解釋):
Just as love of life is destined by nature to preserve the person, so sexual love is destined by it to preserve the species; in other words, each of these is a natural end, by which is understood that connection of a cause with an effect in which, although no understanding is ascribed to the cause, it is still thought by analogy with an intelligent cause, and so as if it produced human beings on purpose. What is now in question is whether a person's use of his sexual capacity is subject to a limiting law of duty with regard to the person himself or whether he is authorized to direct the use of his sexual attributes to mere animal pleasure, without having in view the preservation of the species, and would not thereby be acting contrary to a duty to himself. ...Lust is called unnatural if one is aroused to it not by a real object but by his imagining it, so that he himself creates one, contrapurposively; for in this way imagination brings forth a desire contrary to nature's end, and indeed to an end even more important than that of love of life itself, since it aims at the preservation of the whole species and not only of the individual. 

That such an unnatural use (and so misuse) of one's sexual attribute is a violation of duty to oneself, and indeed one contrary to morality in its highest degree, occurs to everyone immediately, with the thought of it, and stirs up an aversion to this thought to such an extent that it is considered indecent even to call this vice by its proper name. This does not occur with regard to murdering oneself, which one does not hesitate in the least to lay before the world's eyes in all its horror (in a species facti).' In the case of unnatural vice it is as if the human being in general felt ashamed of being capable of tr eating his own person in such a way, which debases him beneath the beasts, so that when even the permitted bodily union of the sexes in marriage (a union which is in itself merely an animal union) is to be mentioned in polite society, this occasions and requires much delicacy to throw a veil over it. 

But it is not so easy to produce a rational proof that unnatural, and even merely unpurposive; use of one's sexual attribute is inadmissible as being a violation of duty to oneself (and indeed, as far as its unnatural use is concerned, a violation in the highest degree). - The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it the human being surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself merely as a means to satisfy an animal impulse. But this does not explain the high degree of violation of the humanity in one's own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness, which seems in terms of its form (the disposition it involves) to exceed even murdering oneself. It consists, then, in this: that someone who defiantly casts off life as a burden is at least not making a feeble surrender to animal impulse in throwing himself away; murdering oneself requires courage, and in this disposition there is still always room for respect for the humanity in one's own person. But unnatural lust, which is complete abandonment of oneself to animal inclination, makes the human being not only an object of enjoyment but, still further, a thing that is contrary to nature, that is, a loathsome object, and so deprives him of all respect for himself. (Kant, The Metaphysics of Morals, 6:424-426)
我想講的只有幾點:
  1. 如果純綷因為康德是名人,他反對一男一女以外的婚姻,所以認為一男一女以外的婚姻是錯的,我現在多提供一個訊息:根據同樣的理由──「康德說」──手淫也是錯的、違反道德義務。
  2. 如果是因為康德是名人,加上康德以「不自然」為由反對一男一女以外的婚姻,所以認為一男一女以外的婚姻是錯的,我現在多提供一個訊息:根據同樣的理由──「康德說這樣不自然」──手淫也是錯的、違反道德義務。
  3. 如果純粹是因為一男一女以外的婚姻不自然,所以認為一男一女以外的婚姻是錯的,那麼,我想說:
    1. 你引康德是混淆視聽,因為你又沒講清楚「自然」是甚麼意思、「不自然」是甚麼意思,只丟出康德的文字,最自然的理解當然是當你在用康德所說的意思。
    2. 你說的「自然」是甚麼意思?
  4. 我沒有在用歸謬法。是不是歸謬法,這該由你判斷。


如何能接受康德的道德哲學,而擺脫一些難以接受的後果,這方面有相當多研究。不過,這不代表我們可以不知就裡便輕易接受康德「反對一男一女以外的婚姻」的部分,同時拋棄他「反對手淫」的部分。如果沒有好理由支持,那只會是雙重標準。

5 comments:

  1. 那就要看他引那段話的目的了。如果只是自 high ,那當然沒有差別,我也可以引一段反對一夫一妻的話來自 high 。但如果是要證明「一夫一妻以外的婚姻都是錯的」,而他的理由會連帶蘊涵「手淫有違道德」,後者是一個(對很多人來說)沒有道理的結果,就算他接受,他還是欠大家一個說明。畢竟,所謂的證明不是指:列出一堆有荒謬後果的東西然後自己接受。更具體地說,如果要在道理上說服別人,就必須有辦法解釋他的理由沒有大家想像中那麼荒謬,例如他的理由其實不蘊涵「手淫有違道德」,或者是其實大家有很好(但一直被忽略)的理由接受「手淫有違道德」。這些都不是一句「我覺得手淫其實也有違道德」就能做到。

    回覆刪除
  2. 我反而對格主覺得只要論「同樣理由康德也反對手淫」就等於「打了他的臉」的思考有點無法理解? 為何格主會預設此人反多元成家卻不反手淫呢? 還是說,格主有啥論述是我沒看出來,以至於即便他反對手淫也可以用「同樣理由康德也反對手淫」來打臉?

    回覆刪除
  3. 關於家庭的概念,康德在《實用人類學》裡有比較詳細的論述。從字面意思看,康德會反對多元成家。可是如果把康德的哲學攤開來看,現今多元成家所追求的精神,卻恰恰好是康德認為家庭最重要的東西 - 把另一個人當成「目的」。

    回覆刪除
  4. Peter Hsiao:
    我沒有說過這樣就打臉。我在本文有說「我沒有在用歸謬法」(我沒有說因為「手淫違反道德」很荒謬所以他是錯的),然而,正如在2f留言有說,如果他要在道理上說服別人,或者是要「證明」甚麼,那就不能只說他覺得沒問題。雖然那段引康德的留言很初步看起來有點道理(不深究意思),但我要指出,有一個標準詮釋是:同樣理由其實也會反對手淫。「反對手淫」顯然比「反對一夫一妻以外的婚姻」還要讓人難以接受,如果那理由有意料不到的嚴重後果,那就該反思自己是不是該接受,就算接受,也該想想怎麼說服很多不接受的人,不能只說很多人不接受只是因為很多人都錯就結束。(主要都在2f講了。)

    Wenson :
    完全同意。

    回覆刪除

 
Toggle Footer