論康德對義務的區分

On Kant's Distinction of Duty

關於康德的倫理學本論文將指出下列四點：要解釋寬廣義務(weite Pflicht)，不能只從「德行義務」(Tugendpflicht)下手，必需注意到形成聰明規則的判斷力在道德實踐領域的影響；寬廣或不完全的義務(unvollkommene Pflicht)，不能被理解為「因傾向而容許例外」的義務；道德倫理的義務(ethische Pflicht)可以等同於「德行義務」(Tugendpflicht)，也可以不等同；康德使用「權利」(Recht)、「目的」(Zweck)兩概念來區分義務，有時反而滋生理解困擾。例如對已完全義務並不全屬於「法律義務」(Rechtspflicht)範圍，有些可以放在德行學(Tugendlehre)中，有些卻可以放在法理學(Rechtslehre)。

This article deals with the following four issues about Kant's ethical theory: 'Wide duty' is not only to be interpreted in the light of 'duty of virtue', 'cleverness of judgment' should also be taken into consideration. Wide or imperfect duty is not to be understood as 'free to do or not to do as we feel inclined'. Kant's terminology 'duty of ethic' can sometimes be identically defined as 'duty of virtue', but sometimes can not. Kant's distinction of duty with concepts of 'right' and 'end' is not always without problem. Because some duties which are related to human rights (i.e. perfect duty to myself) may belong to ethical realm as well as juridical realm.